In light of Pres. Obama's recent green-light to embryonic stem cell research, I've had a few debates about it in the non-Plime realm (*gasp* I know, there's actually a world besides Plime!).

Do Plimates agree or disagree with the President's decision?

Do Plimates support using embryonic stem cells for research, or not?


I personally feel that so long research is done ethically and for good reasons (as opposed to just "let's see what happens if we do this"), this is a great thing. I am anticipating big things from these scientists in the future.

I was actually ecstatic when I found this out. It's a great leap forward for the scientific community.

Agree.

A lot of the arguments against it are mostly emotional and not particularly logical, IMO.

Ex: "They'll destroy embryos!"... you mean the embryos that will be thrown away if they aren't used? Isn't it better to use them for the improvement of science that could drastically change lives (for the positive) than to throw away a bunch of cells?

I'm not completely up on this but, hasn't stem cell research already been going on?
Didn't it just get expanded on by Obama (New Lines)?

Hasn't there been other research found to be just as promising as Embryonic stem cells, such as adult and placenta stem cells?


Anyways, I am all about the cure, so yes, I vote yes for cures.

I'm ecstatic about the decision to reverse Bush's ban on stem cell use. The majority of arguments regarding this are ridiculous, and honestly not just rooting from christian conservatives or pro lifers. Many hospital execs and doctors/surgeons are comparing this to the cure for the common cold. While it may be great to get a shot of stem cells to cure your disease, just think for a moment how much money the hospitals are going to lose if this really takes off. Stem cells hold the key to eliminating many types and reasons for organ transplants and treatments for life threatening illnesses such as cancer and crones disease. Just like EVERYTHING else, this has a lot to do with some people not being able to maintain their current lifestyles. I say screw em........

YEA OBAMA!

Yes, just without government funding.

And also yes in other parts of the world.

But the might of American academia and research institutes is powerful indeed and this will make a big difference to the speed at which developments progress.

__________________________________________________

In general terms, embryonic stem cells are easier to work with and more fecund than their adult counterparts and so in these early days of research are preferable.

Techniques, methods and skills developed in research with embryonic stem cells will most likely prove useful in the future on adult ones - possibly harvested from the patient.

And in answer to the OP, I'm very pleased by this on a personal as well as global level.

My dad has a degenerative neurone disease that most likely could be cured by therapies resulting from stem cells.

Obama didn't really overturn a ban on use of stem cells, or give the research a green light. What he did was to allow federal funding of stem cell research.

It's a big step, but there is still a lot of legislation that has to be broken through before any federal money actually reaches stem cell researchers. And the federal government has to be able to spare some money in the first place.

Don't get me wrong though - huge step.

Maybe you meant to say Clinton

The question is, what is ethical when it comes to research and "experimenting"?

Everyone has their own interpretation of what is ethical.

edit: I'm glad legislation was changed and I'm all for it. Just posing the question because "ethical" was brought up.

I am very much in favor of the change in legislation, and hope that it is a sign of more to come.

definitely good.
"let's see what happens if we do this" well that's part of pure research. i don't think we would have had many anti viruses if some one did not.

am sure i heard otherwise - maybe Clinton started it with a ban but a few years back Bush stopped federal funds to this research. and this is cutting edge stuff - it made an impact.

The problem isn't with stem cells and the research being done to find cures and treatments with them. It's how they're harvested. Yes, they come from embryos. There are many of us who are very much against abortions. They are many of us who feel like abortion is murder. There is a very big ethical question here. Do we start cloning for the sole purpose of creating embryos just so they can be aborted for the stem cells?

I'm not starting an anti-abortion arguement here, I'm just starting a discussion of where do we draw the line? Because that is where this is headed.

Me too.
I believe stem cell research is important to do. This is a belief, because I am not up to date with the information about it. I base my belief on old information and on the fact that I didn't encounter any new argument or major uproar against it.

Abortions are not a part of embryonic stem cell harvesting.

At the point that an embryo (as distinct from a foetus) would be useful for harvesting it hasn't implanted in the womb lining (this is a 2-3 day period post fertilisation) and in the context of termination or abortion the small blob of cells would be utterly lost in amongst the rest of the menses discharged at the time.

The question of when life begins is not relevant here because the practicalities of retrieving the cells you need in this instance from a process of termination would prohibit it.

Most stem cells for research come from the, for want of a better term, left overs of in vitreo fertilisation. Typically a couple undergoing fertility treatment will have several ova removed and fertilised in one go to allow for repeat attempts at impregnation. If there is early success the remaining fertilised ova become superfluous.

These would be destroyed anyway but if donated to research then stem cells are taken from them.

So the question there is not whether you are opposed to abortion, but whether you are opposed to fertility treatment.

To further simplify the matter (or complicate it, depending on your stance) there are successful techniques in place that allow for the removal of stem cells from embryos that are not fatal and cause no harm at all.

At present there are sufficient "spare" embryos for the research to take place, and the nature of stem cells mean that once you've got a colony going you can propagate it for a very long time, but if you take the word "abortion" out of the equation the ethical point of embryos purely for research could potentially arise.

However, one last point to consider is that embryonic stem cells will most likely in time make themselves redundant. They are currently much easier to work with than adult stem cells and techniques that are developed and honed on those from embryos may well and are expected to eventually be applied to adult stem cells which can be retrieved from the patient or an adult donor with no ill effects.

You'd then be back in the position of wondering what to do with the unneeded IVF embryos.

*****

Finally and just for information, fetal stem cells are harvested from the gonads of aborted foetuses, but they are not the subject of this discussion.

In your opinion. Some of us belive that the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, life has begun. Because it hasn't reached the fetus stage doesn't matter. Some of us believe that "disposing" of an embryo is just as wrong as aborting a fetus. But that wasn't my question, was it? As a "right-to-life" proponent, I'm not going to persuade a "pro-choice" person that they're wrong and vice versa, so let's not go down that road. It's pointless, even though you chose to take my argument down that road. Look at my last sentence. Is cloning just for the sake of harvesting embryonic stem cells acceptable? Is OK to get stem cells regardless of how we get them?

I am for stem cell research IF the harvesting methods don't involve embryos or aborted fetuses.

Umbilical cord blood, a natural byproduct of delivery that is usually thrown away, is an excellent source of stem cells. There are already cord blood banks. If parents don't want to store cord blood as a hedge against possible illnesses in their offspring, stem cell research would be a great use for the cord blood. Consent could be obtained before birth, and there would be so much stem cell material available that the controversy would be moot.

But that wasn't Pocky's answer, was it?

If it is aborted, it is dead. I don;t care about what happens to my body after I die, I don't care about a dead fetus either.

Where's that coming from? Pock quoted my original post, but chose to give his opinion on something other than what I asked, which was "Do we start cloning for the sole purpose of creating embryos just so they can be aborted for the stem cells?

I'm not starting an anti-abortion arguement here, I'm just starting a discussion of where do we draw the line? Because that is where this is headed."

So what's your point?