Clinical Trial of Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Therapy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
So we are going to butcher a baby because it may be able to cure things? Next maybe we can experiment on Jews.[/quote]

Why?

Right now you have two social experiments running that cost a generous amount of lifes.

IÃ???Ã??Ã?´d day we declare a “War on Alzheimers” and cavalierly accept collateral damage.

It is for the greater good after all.

[/quote]

You do harvest humans.[/quote]

If by “you”, you mean Austria, we most certainly do.

If you die here and have been halfway healthy, we will gut you like a fish before we send the rest back.

Why?

[/quote]

Well, here in America we believe in individual property rights, and since my body is my property I can not, and will not be harvested without my consent, and something tells me the baby didn’t give consent to be harvested.

22

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
So we are going to butcher a baby because it may be able to cure things? Next maybe we can experiment on Jews.[/quote]

Why?

Right now you have two social experiments running that cost a generous amount of lifes.

IÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?´d day we declare a “War on Alzheimers” and cavalierly accept collateral damage.

It is for the greater good after all.

[/quote]

You do harvest humans.[/quote]

If by “you”, you mean Austria, we most certainly do.

If you die here and have been halfway healthy, we will gut you like a fish before we send the rest back.

Why?

[/quote]

Well, here in America we believe in individual property rights, and since my body is my property I can not, and will not be harvested without my consent, and something tells me the baby didn’t give consent to be harvested.[/quote]

I will have none of that defeatist liberal attitude!

If some embryos must die so that others may live they die.

The glory of Rome demands it.

Plus, it is a guiding principle of US foreign policy that you can kill a shitload of people if you can somehow vaguely justify it in an utilitarian manner so I do not see why a few hundred embryos can not be killed so that millions might benefit. The death/reward ratio is most definitely better than in any of you foreign adventures so I say harvest away.

Its cheaper too?

It is downright conservative if you think about it, if you used embryos that would have been aborted anyway, at least then they did not die in vain.

As a sidenote, the question of property rights is kind of moot when you are as dead as the Dodo, so its not like we steal or anything, one could say that we homestead your organs.

23

[quote]orion wrote:

I will have none of that defeatist liberal attitude!

If some embryos must die so that others may live they die.

The glory of Rome demands it.

Plus, it is a guiding principle of US foreign policy that you can kill a shitload of people if you can somehow vaguely justify it in an utilitarian manner so I do not see why a few hundred embryos can not be killed so that millions might benefit. The death/reward ratio is most definitely better than in any of you foreign adventures so I say harvest away.

Its cheaper too?

It is downright conservative if you think about it, if you used embryos that would have been aborted anyway, at least then they did not die in vain.

As a sidenote, the question of property rights is kind of moot when you are as dead as the Dodo, so its not like we steal or anything, one could say that we homestead your organs.

[/quote]
HAHA well played.

24

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yet, I can and will oppose the creation of human life for our own consumption.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

You still have to kill humans to do it.[/quote]

No, you don’t.

Fetuses are discarded every day. The idea that women are going to “create life” with the intention to have an abortion and “donate so little Timmy can walk again” is absurd. A woman could not become pregnant, get an abortion, and have a targeted donation. A transfer method from pregnant woman to researcher does not exist.

Research and treatment would just use the cells which are currently thrown away.

25

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Nothing vampirish about that…[/quote]

No, no, of course not. Maybe one day the human embryo recycling industry will cure that darn disease, “Old age.” I’d say it inflicts more people than any other malady.

The blood is the life.[/quote]

Like I said: if you don’t like it, don’t accept the treatment. Simple.[/quote]

Well, there’s always political recourse, too. [/quote]

Once Big Pharma gets a hold of these treatments, a few key political contributions and it’ll be a done deal. Money talks and bullshit walks, and there’s no such thing as a moral politician in either party.[/quote]

You don’t oppose evil only once it’s the popular and easy thing to do. The difficulties don’t concern me.[/quote]

But I do oppose evil. I’ve met people with MS and Azheimers and I’ve dealt with their families as well. I’ve been to my share of nursing homes. (BTW - Nursing homes suck.) I can think of few things that would be more evil than telling these people and their families “There is a potential cure out there that can both save your life and allow you to regain your lost function. Sorry, you can’t have it.”

I suggest you volunteer in a nursing home. It may not change your mind, but at least it will allow you to have a more informed opinion.[/quote]

You still have to kill humans to do it.[/quote]

So?

We kill human beings for less.

[/quote]

Killing someone for the purpose of extending someone’s life, when the person being killed is not immediately endangering the other person’s life is morally wrong.

26

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Nothing vampirish about that…[/quote]

No, no, of course not. Maybe one day the human embryo recycling industry will cure that darn disease, “Old age.” I’d say it inflicts more people than any other malady.

The blood is the life.[/quote]

Like I said: if you don’t like it, don’t accept the treatment. Simple.[/quote]

Well, there’s always political recourse, too. [/quote]

Once Big Pharma gets a hold of these treatments, a few key political contributions and it’ll be a done deal. Money talks and bullshit walks, and there’s no such thing as a moral politician in either party.[/quote]

You don’t oppose evil only once it’s the popular and easy thing to do. The difficulties don’t concern me.[/quote]

But I do oppose evil. I’ve met people with MS and Azheimers and I’ve dealt with their families as well. I’ve been to my share of nursing homes. (BTW - Nursing homes suck.) I can think of few things that would be more evil than telling these people and their families “There is a potential cure out there that can both save your life and allow you to regain your lost function. Sorry, you can’t have it.”

I suggest you volunteer in a nursing home. It may not change your mind, but at least it will allow you to have a more informed opinion.[/quote]

You still have to kill humans to do it.[/quote]

This assumes that we know exactly when human life begins. I do not know the exact moment when human life begins. Anyone who does possesses special mental powers that I do not possess.
[/quote]

In order to get a stem cell you have to get it from a live embryo, one that is living…not dead…one that is dead is useless. So, if scientists can identify that an embryo is alive, then why can we not determine that it is alive.

27

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
So we are going to butcher a baby because it may be able to cure things? Next maybe we can experiment on Jews.[/quote]

Why?

Right now you have two social experiments running that cost a generous amount of lifes.

IÃ?´d day we declare a “War on Alzheimers” and cavalierly accept collateral damage.

It is for the greater good after all.

[/quote]

Come on now, use your thinking cap. You know it is morally wrong, and principally wrong to use humans as a means to an end, especially when it involves taking their life.

28

[quote]4est wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yet, I can and will oppose the creation of human life for our own consumption.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

You still have to kill humans to do it.[/quote]

No, you don’t.

Fetuses are discarded every day. The idea that women are going to “create life” with the intention to have an abortion and “donate so little Timmy can walk again” is absurd. A woman could not become pregnant, get an abortion, and have a targeted donation. A transfer method from pregnant woman to researcher does not exist.

Research and treatment would just use the cells which are currently thrown away.[/quote]

Um…when they take the stem cells out of the live embryo does that embryo grow into a grown person or does it just die and get thrown away?

It dies, therefore you killed a human.

29

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
So we are going to butcher a baby because it may be able to cure things? Next maybe we can experiment on Jews.[/quote]

Why?

Right now you have two social experiments running that cost a generous amount of lifes.

IÃ??Ã?´d day we declare a “War on Alzheimers” and cavalierly accept collateral damage.

It is for the greater good after all.

[/quote]

Come on now, use your thinking cap. You know it is morally wrong, and principally wrong to use humans as a means to an end, especially when it involves taking their life.[/quote]

Oh I absolutely know that I am just trying to bring a little reason into all of this.

The US government kills people all the time, for all kinds of reasons, be it to prevent to from smoking a plant or to bring “freedom and democracy” to regions that realistically could hope for a benevolent monarch, tops, so why not just kill a little bit when it is cheaper and much more promising than those other endevours?

If maiming and killing is an integral part of American politics why not accept that and be reasonable about it?

30

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
So we are going to butcher a baby because it may be able to cure things? Next maybe we can experiment on Jews.[/quote]

Why?

Right now you have two social experiments running that cost a generous amount of lifes.

IÃ???Ã??Ã?´d day we declare a “War on Alzheimers” and cavalierly accept collateral damage.

It is for the greater good after all.

[/quote]

Come on now, use your thinking cap. You know it is morally wrong, and principally wrong to use humans as a means to an end, especially when it involves taking their life.[/quote]

Oh I absolutely know that I am just trying to bring a little reason into all of this.

The US government kills people all the time, for all kinds of reasons, be it to prevent to from smoking a plant or to bring “freedom and democracy” to regions that realistically could hope for a benevolent monarch, tops, so why not just kill a little bit when it is cheaper and much more promising than those other endevours?

If maiming and killing is an integral part of American politics why not accept that and be reasonable about it?

[/quote]

Ah…I sensed you were playing devils advocate. Yes, yes. I agree with you that the killings that are sanctioned are by far one of the most gruesome acts that anyone could do.

However, even though my beliefs are reasonable, my wavering on issues are comparable to a stone wall. And appeals to popularity have no affect. :slight_smile:

31

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
So we are going to butcher a baby because it may be able to cure things? Next maybe we can experiment on Jews.[/quote]

Why?

Right now you have two social experiments running that cost a generous amount of lifes.

IÃ???Ã???Ã??Ã?´d day we declare a “War on Alzheimers” and cavalierly accept collateral damage.

It is for the greater good after all.

[/quote]

Come on now, use your thinking cap. You know it is morally wrong, and principally wrong to use humans as a means to an end, especially when it involves taking their life.[/quote]

Oh I absolutely know that I am just trying to bring a little reason into all of this.

The US government kills people all the time, for all kinds of reasons, be it to prevent to from smoking a plant or to bring “freedom and democracy” to regions that realistically could hope for a benevolent monarch, tops, so why not just kill a little bit when it is cheaper and much more promising than those other endevours?

If maiming and killing is an integral part of American politics why not accept that and be reasonable about it?

[/quote]

Ah…I sensed you were playing devils advocate. Yes, yes. I agree with you that the killings that are sanctioned are by far one of the most gruesome acts that anyone could do.

However, even though my beliefs are reasonable, my wavering on issues are comparable to a stone wall. And appeals to popularity have no affect. :)[/quote]

Ha, but I do not need you, I need the hoi polloi!

If they could sell them WMDs911mushroomcloudovermanhattan and too big too failI can sell them stem cell research.

32

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Wow, so a cure for Alzheimer’s could be on the horizon? Imagine the potential here, being able to cure things like MS.[/quote]

Not to mention the possible reversal of spinal cord injuries. People who have been trapped in wheelchairs for years could walk again. [/quote]

That would be something to see. Truly amazing stuff.

33

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I suggest you volunteer in a nursing home. It may not change your mind, but at least it will allow you to have a more informed opinion.[/quote]

I just watched an elderly family member wither away from plueral mesothelioma. I watched him struggle to get out of his death bed, as doped as he was, agitated by the inability to draw enough oxygen. No, I haven’t shared this on any other threads, and won’t share any further details. I myself narrowly–and I do mean narrowly–survived a lethal condition. Nor am I now 100% free from this condition rearing it’s head again. And no, I’m not going into detail here, either. None of it’s relevant to the creation/destruction of human life for our cannibalistic ends.

In short, I’ve seen misery, pain, and felt the breath of the Reaper on the back of my own neck. Yet, I can and will oppose the creation of human life for our own consumption. Even if it would make us all sparkle in the sunlight and never grow old.[/quote]

What creation of human life are you speaking of? As far as I am aware, all embryonic stem cell research is done on embryos that are already in existence (usually from in vitro) and if not used will simply degrade as they continue on well past viable storage life. If anything, embryonic stem cell research prolongs life. Or are you advancing a slippery slope argument?

34

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Nothing vampirish about that…[/quote]

No, no, of course not. Maybe one day the human embryo recycling industry will cure that darn disease, “Old age.” I’d say it inflicts more people than any other malady.

The blood is the life.[/quote]

Like I said: if you don’t like it, don’t accept the treatment. Simple.[/quote]

Well, there’s always political recourse, too. [/quote]

Once Big Pharma gets a hold of these treatments, a few key political contributions and it’ll be a done deal. Money talks and bullshit walks, and there’s no such thing as a moral politician in either party.[/quote]

You don’t oppose evil only once it’s the popular and easy thing to do. The difficulties don’t concern me.[/quote]

But I do oppose evil. I’ve met people with MS and Azheimers and I’ve dealt with their families as well. I’ve been to my share of nursing homes. (BTW - Nursing homes suck.) I can think of few things that would be more evil than telling these people and their families “There is a potential cure out there that can both save your life and allow you to regain your lost function. Sorry, you can’t have it.”

I suggest you volunteer in a nursing home. It may not change your mind, but at least it will allow you to have a more informed opinion.[/quote]

You still have to kill humans to do it.[/quote]

So?

We kill human beings for less.

[/quote]

Killing someone for the purpose of extending someone’s life, when the person being killed is not immediately endangering the other person’s life is morally wrong.[/quote]

You are right. Instead we should let these embryos, which already exists, continue to rot. Thus, killing them at a much later point.

35

You ask;

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What creation of human life are you speaking of?[/quote]

Then state;

And then I just sadly shake my head and sigh.

36

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You ask;

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What creation of human life are you speaking of?[/quote]

Then state;

And then I just sadly shake my head and sigh.

[/quote]

Your point? Or do you simply get a big fat F in logical reasoning? Again, I ask what embryos are created for the purposes of stem cell research? Embryos created in in vitro are not created for stem cell research. They are created so infertile couples can have children. As part of this process, there are often extra embryos that are not viable for in vitro use or that are not implanted for other reasons. These embryos already exist and would otherwise ROT and degrade if they were not used. If your beef is with in vitro, that battle is already lost, my friend.

So, what you basically rail against is using something already in existence to promote life that is otherwise destined for certain death.

37

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You ask;

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What creation of human life are you speaking of?[/quote]

Then state;

And then I just sadly shake my head and sigh.

[/quote]

Your point? Or do you simply get a big fat F in logical reasoning? Again, I ask what embryos are created for the purposes of stem cell research? Embryos created in in vitro are not created for stem cell research. They are created so infertile couples can have children. As part of this process, there are often extra embryos that are not viable for in vitro use or that are not implanted for other reasons. These embryos already exist and would otherwise ROT and degrade if they were not used. If your beef is with in vitro, that battle is already lost, my friend.

So, what you basically rail against is using something already in existence to promote life that is otherwise destined for certain death.[/quote]

Heh.

38

Stop the baby murder arguement, I do not believe in abortion, it is not needed for this to be successful.

Ever hear of a Cord Blood bank, well now they can also save the afterbirth and uterine lining that comes with normal child birth and is rich in mesenchymal stem cells.

I am a very strong believer, but I have also done research in differentiation of the above material. Try to tell me there is something morally wrong with that.

Now if they are still using aborted fetuses, that is wrong there is no need. But to use basically the afterbirth and be able to do such useful things with it is amazing.

39

[quote]4est wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yet, I can and will oppose the creation of human life for our own consumption.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

You still have to kill humans to do it.[/quote]

No, you don’t.

Fetuses are discarded every day. The idea that women are going to “create life” with the intention to have an abortion and “donate so little Timmy can walk again” is absurd. A woman could not become pregnant, get an abortion, and have a targeted donation. A transfer method from pregnant woman to researcher does not exist.

Research and treatment would just use the cells which are currently thrown away.[/quote]

Which is morally repugnant any way you slice it. Just because “people do it every day,” doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Killing a person is wrong. There is no discernible break in the human life cycle between conception and death.

40

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You ask;

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What creation of human life are you speaking of?[/quote]

Then state;

And then I just sadly shake my head and sigh.

[/quote]

Your point? Or do you simply get a big fat F in logical reasoning? Again, I ask what embryos are created for the purposes of stem cell research? Embryos created in in vitro are not created for stem cell research. They are created so infertile couples can have children. As part of this process, there are often extra embryos that are not viable for in vitro use or that are not implanted for other reasons. These embryos already exist and would otherwise ROT and degrade if they were not used. If your beef is with in vitro, that battle is already lost, my friend.

So, what you basically rail against is using something already in existence to promote life that is otherwise destined for certain death.[/quote]

Which is another morally repugnant process and should be done away with. If you can’t get pregnant, there’s probably a good reason…No shortage of need kids for adoption. They don’t have to exit your pussy to be yours.