Embryonic stem cell research

There has been a lot of disscusion on this topic in the media, like when Christopher Reeve died, and on whether or not politicions support it, I just want to know something... if it's research than what is wrong with it, I don't know much about the topic but I wish someone would tell me.

And once that's covered feel free to discuss it.

This is just another abortion topic where people will go back and forth arguing whether if embryo is a baby (person) or if embryo is just an embryo (cell). Personally, however, I absolutely agree and support embryonic stem cell research. To me, an embryo is not a baby (person), it's just a cluster of cells. And like what I've stated before, it does not feel pain, it can't think, it can't live on its own, it doesn't even have internal organs.

Stem cell research is beneficial to the human race. It can help ones that are paralyzed for life to start walking again (or at least, move some parts of their bodies). It can also help saves lives for ones that have nerual damages. It can also repair other internal organ injuries or even external serious injuries.

So basicly people are just fighting over whether or not to help neuroly hurt and paralyzed (already what it may cure) because the little thing could be a person?! That is the most ****ed up crap I've ever heard.... I mean... c'mon! I don't know what I was expecting the reason to be but.... that?! Oh man, I always supported the research, and I don't care that I didn't know what the controvircy was over... but now I have more of a reason to support it, that's just stupid.

Yes, that's basically what everyone's arguing over: whether to use an embryo that could possibly become a baby, or to use an embryo that was (and still is) a cluster of cells from the start. Because apparently, human cells cannot be used as experiments but other types of cells can. Such logic, personally, I find it flawed myself, considering that should a single human cell be seen as a "living person" or one that can "become a living person", then what makes us humans superior than other organisms on Earth (other than being more sentient)? In the end, we are contradicting ourselves and ironically, it makes us more of a hypocrite than anything by thinking that only "human cells" should live and other cells or organisms can be experimented on.

And to say that all living cells should be respect and should be given a chance to live is wrong as well. Because if that's the case, forget about medicines or surgeries. Forget about saving lives.

Apparently, most religious groups would go anti on the research because they believed that an embryo is a living thing, a human, a person, and can somehow, some way "think" (note the quotes). Even if it can't think, even if it isn't a person, a baby, a human, it has the "potential chance" of becoming one. And, to defend counter-arguments such as the fact that a cell is a cell, what makes it human, etc, they can further bring up the idea of: "Well, because you didn't give it a chance to become a baby, so it really doesn't have a chance to protest" (something like that anyway). In the end, it's basing on their morality and ideology that brings them into arguments of why stem cell research shouldn't exist in the first place.

Yeah, you see the flaws in that?

while I support embryonic stem cell research, I will tell you some of the arguments against it. many people consider an embryo a living human. if this is the case, we'd be killing a living human. of course, I don't see it that way. also, people argue that adult stem cells, taken from bone marrow and teeth, can do the same job. the thing is, embryonic stem cells can turn into any cell in the body; adult stem cells can only turn into certain types.

but the thing I'm wondering is that with all these discarded embryos from clinics that go to waste, why don't we take stem cells from them, and then we're not hurting anyone? once we have a few lines of stem cells, we don't even need anymore embryos.

You really want me to count the ways? Really?

I just don't get it, so what if it has the potential, is it yet? Maybe, but you don't know, for all we know there could be a whole universe in one cell. So what's stopped humans from killing before? Nothing, maybe they see it as trading one life for another, maybe. Why don't these cults and groups go try and stop hunting, or join Jack Thompson stop video games, it'd be the same thing.

many people, especially religious ones, believe in the "sanctity of human life". basically, they feel that killing another human is always unjustified unless it's absolutely necessary. but not everyone believes in this. if you're not opposed to killing, would you object if people were to kill you to help others?

True, but can babies object to such a thing? No they can't can they?

Scoria, you dont seem to understand that umbilical cords and plecenta contain stem cells.

Originally Posted by Scoria

True, but can babies object to such a thing? No they can't can they?

They can't agree, either.

I could cut out your spleen without your objection, if I could manage it without your knowledge. Does that make it my right? Certainly not!

This is just another abortion topic where people will go back and forth arguing whether if embryo is a baby (person) or if embryo is just an embryo (cell). Personally, however, I absolutely agree and support embryonic stem cell research. To me, an embryo is not a baby (person), it's just a cluster of cells. And like what I've stated before, it does not feel pain, it can't think, it can't live on its own, it doesn't even have internal organs.

But it is alive, and it is human, and those are two conditions that cannot be disputed. You are also alive and human, if I am not mistaken. Does having internal organs determine whether or not something is a human life? No. Does feeling pain determine whether or not something is a human life? No. And, if you didn't notice, NO organism lives on its own. They all require nourishment from an outside source.

That makes you very similar, in all respects, to that innocent little life you claim as being "just a cluster of cells." For all intents and purposes, you are also "just a cluster of cells," yours just happen to be larger in mass and more developed than those of the embryo.

Once upon a time, Africans were not considered humans, either. But the science of the matter cannot be disputed.

Because apparently, human cells cannot be used as experiments but other types of cells can.

Go ahead and use human cells. Just don't take human lives to do so.

the thing is, embryonic stem cells can turn into any cell in the body; adult stem cells can only turn into certain types.

Not so.

"Adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are unspecialized, can renew themselves, and can become specialized to yield all of the cell types of the tissue from which they originate. Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, no adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent."

This means that you cannot turn ANY strain of cells into ANY OTHER strain. Not that there is NO strain of cells that you cannot turn another strain into.

Also...

"Although embryonic stem cell research has not yet produced similar results, many scientists believe embryonic stem cell research holds promise over time because of the capacity of embryonic stem cells to develop into any tissue in the human body."

Although worded to endorse embryonic stem cell research, this hints only towards "promise" and "capacity," not "ability."

Source (link)

You'd choose a line of cells that HAS NOT reaped results over one that HAS?

Intelligence at its best.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

But it is alive, and it is human, and those are two conditions that cannot be disputed. You are also alive and human, if I am not mistaken. Does having internal organs determine whether or not something is a human life? No. Does feeling pain determine whether or not something is a human life? No. And, if you didn't notice, NO organism lives on its own. They all require nourishment from an outside source.

I'm alive and human, okay. That's pretty much obvious. What's alive again? The cluster of cells? Well, so does other plant cells, other types of animal cells. Are you a vegetarian? Because if you are not, my God, you have committed countless of murders just by eating chickens, cow meat, lamb meat, etc. What makes us "human cells" so much more important than other animals and plants on Earth?

Since the Webster Online-Dictionary stated:

Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature

So if it's human (defined as characteristics of human) then that means blood cells are humans too (point 1)? Since it is relating to human, or wait, is it? In embryo stage, most animals' embryos are similar to each other to an extent. Can you truely define if that's a cheetah embryo, or human embryo?

Consisting of humans (point 2). Does the embryo consist of humans? Hmm.... I guess I don't need to explain that (not, it doesn't).

Having human form or attributes... (point 3). Definitely not. At least, not at this stage of the game.

And when I said it doesn't live independently, OBVIOUSLY you would have guessed that I was talking about: "internal organs functioning well by themselves without the help from the mother, can breathe by self, can eat by self". And this sentence: "They all require nourishment from an outside source" is common sense. You were thinking that I was too dumb to know that? Bah... you just didn't get what I was talking about that's all.

That makes you very similar, in all respects, to that innocent little life you claim as being "just a cluster of cells." For all intents and purposes, you are also "just a cluster of cells," yours just happen to be larger in mass and more developed than those of the embryo.

On the contrary, I can think, I can type, I can survive well enough on my own if I have a job (I do have a job). I can breathe, I can move my body part on my own with my own will. I can learn, I have feelings, I can do everything that an embryo cannot do at all. So therefore, what is your point? You are comparing a full grown adult with a cluster of cells. That's like comparing an elephant to an ant. They are related because they are animals (or living anyway), but they are two different things. Me being a person, is clearly different from being an embryo (but of course, since they are "human cells", we share miniscule resemblences). Should I become an embryo, you would probably see me wagging my tail in front of the keyboard while slithering around, dying slowly.

Once upon a time, Africans were not considered humans, either. But the science of the matter cannot be disputed.

And the conclusion of that story is: "People didn't have enough knowledges to distinguish between logical explanations/facts and fairy tales/ignorance back in that far far away land, years upon years ago". And now we have science right in front of us, what else are you going to say?

Go ahead and use human cells. Just don't take human lives to do so.

How ironic. First, you tell us to go ahead and use human cells in attempt to refute my argument, yet you said human embryos are humans. But embroys are composed out of cells, human cells. Then what in the world are you saying?! Okay, even if you said that embryos are humans, they are still composed of human cells! You are just going in circles right now.

EDIT: By the way, when I said human cells, I meant every single different types of human cells.

If it could save millions, and that baby was already aborted, well why the hell not? It's life still would have meaning.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

But it is alive, and it is human, and those are two conditions that cannot be disputed. You are also alive and human, if I am not mistaken. Does having internal organs determine whether or not something is a human life? No. Does feeling pain determine whether or not something is a human life? No. And, if you didn't notice, NO organism lives on its own. They all require nourishment from an outside source.

can't be disputed? why does half of america disagree with that if it can't be disputed? anyway, let's not turn this into another abortion debate. arguing about this will go nowhere. just realize that many many people don't consider an early embryo to be a living human.

"Adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are unspecialized, can renew themselves, and can become specialized to yield all of the cell types of the tissue from which they originate. Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, no adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent."

This means that you cannot turn ANY strain of cells into ANY OTHER strain. Not that there is NO strain of cells that you cannot turn another strain into.

Also...

"Although embryonic stem cell research has not yet produced similar results, many scientists believe embryonic stem cell research holds promise over time because of the capacity of embryonic stem cells to develop into any tissue in the human body."

Although worded to endorse embryonic stem cell research, this hints only towards "promise" and "capacity," not "ability."

Source (link)

You'd choose a line of cells that HAS NOT reaped results over one that HAS?

first off, you need a better source. the current administration does not support embryonic stem cell research, so you need to find unbiased information. bush's science advisor carries a bible with him wherever he goes.

according to the national institute of health, "Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin."

as for progress, I should hope more progress has been made with adult stem cells. why? because embryonic stem cells get no federal funding. obviously it's not gonna go anywhere if it's listed in popular science as one of the worst jobs in america. but if you want results, humans are a result of embryonic stem cells. that's a pretty good result if you ask me.

also, my point remains that there are embryos being thrown away from clinics. why not use one of these? even then, we already have embryonic stem cell lines. continuing these doesn't require more embryos.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

first off, you need a better source. the current administration does not support embryonic stem cell research, so you need to find unbiased information.

The current administration does not support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That's a big difference from "does not support." Perhaps they don't support it in general, as well, but it is still legal for private firms to pursue ESC research on their own.

As for other sources:

Scientists grow adult stem cells from nose.

Head researcher Alan Mackay-Sim of Griffith University said the adult stem cells taken from inside the nose could potentially be used to grow nerve, heart, liver, kidney and muscle cells.

“We have got an adult stem cell which is accessible in everybody and we can grow lots of these cells and turn them into many other cell types,” Mackay-Sim told Reuters.

“Apart from neural and brain cells, they look like they can turn into blood cells, heart muscle and to skeletal muscle,” he said in an interview.

I also just ran across this link, but I'm not quite sure what it means.

bush's science advisor carries a bible with him wherever he goes.

What's your point? Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

according to the national institute of health, "Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin."

But as is the point with the article I pointed to above-- we're moving away from the view of adult stem cells as uncompromisingly rigid, and recognizing in them a remarkable fluidity that we hadn't recognized before. Yes, that's the traditional mode of thought on it. But from what I've read-- and those articles are my quick finds-- we're gradually seeing ASC as more pliable than we had originally thought.

as for progress, I should hope more progress has been made with adult stem cells. why? because embryonic stem cells get no federal funding. obviously it's not gonna go anywhere if it's listed in popular science as one of the worst jobs in america.

I know ESC get no (edit: actually, George Bush is the first person to spend money on ESC research, but it obviously isn't anything near what people would like, and is limited to a very small sample) federal funding, but do ASC get federal funding?

but if you want results, humans are a result of embryonic stem cells. that's a pretty good result if you ask me

Heh. But we're not results of embryonic stem cell research.

And as a side question: we live in capitalistic America... if ESC are so promising, wouldn't we expect to see a huge influx of investment capital into the sector? After all, these are potential cure-alls of many significant problems.

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

Since the Webster Online-Dictionary stated:

Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature

So if it's human (defined as