Stem cell research . . . Do you cosign the banning of it?

LUClEN
LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited July 2012 in The Social Lounge
I am a little ignorant regarding it, but I understand the basic premise of how stem cells from human embryos can heal diseases and the significant progress that could be made in the area of medical science if more focus and resources were put into it.

Personally, as someone who does not see abortion as something absolutely wrong or immoral, I support the idea. While I may support the idea of stem cells being used to heal, i also cosign the European Court of Justice's decision to forbid patenting of stem cell break throughs. It seems a little over the top to me.

What are your views on it?

Comments

  • MissK
    MissK Members Posts: 4,103 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This a very tough subject because it calls in to play the value of life and death. Depending on what you believe, abortion is a death and is tragic. On the other side you have those that are living life but are suffering from a disease in which there is no current cure-another tragedy. Which has a higher value? Does a breakthrough in research justify the means? Also, we must remember that at one time ? transplant was seen as unethical..

    Some Pros I found for stem cell research are possible cures for:

    Parkinson’s Disease
    Alzheimer’s Disease
    Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)
    Birth Defects
    Spinal Cord Injuries
    Replace or Repair Damaged Organs
    Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future)
    Stem cells may play a major role in cancer

    I am also in support of the advancement of medicine through stem cell research with strict guidelines. I need to research the European Court ruling before commenting.

  • nujerz84
    nujerz84 Members Posts: 15,418 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I read somewhere they can get stem cells from teeth...
  • Gold_Certificate
    Gold_Certificate Members Posts: 13,228 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Regulator
    edited July 2012
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • VIBE
    VIBE Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • NeighborhoodNomad.
    NeighborhoodNomad. Members Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭✭✭
    But even if it was banned that wouldnt stop it from being researched and practiced.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ~SpecialK~ wrote: »
    This a very tough subject because it calls in to play the value of life and death. Depending on what you believe, abortion is a death and is tragic. On the other side you have those that are living life but are suffering from a disease in which there is no current cure-another tragedy. Which has a higher value? Does a breakthrough in research justify the means? Also, we must remember that at one time ? transplant was seen as unethical..

    Some Pros I found for stem cell research are possible cures for:

    Parkinson’s Disease
    Alzheimer’s Disease
    Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)
    Birth Defects
    Spinal Cord Injuries
    Replace or Repair Damaged Organs
    Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future)
    Stem cells may play a major role in cancer

    I am also in support of the advancement of medicine through stem cell research with strict guidelines. I need to research the European Court ruling before commenting.

    The bolded seems to be my general opinion on the matter, but I must admit that I'm a bit ignorant as well. That list of pros and the possiblity of cures are the deciding factors that make me generally approve of stem cell research but, as you said, only as long as it is strictly regulated. Not too many things are immoral within themselves. All it takes is a little ethical moderation.

    Like all things, however, comes the inevitable threat/reality of the exploitation and corruption of stem cell research. Government regulation can't possibly keep everyone in check. I can't remember the details, but a long time ago somebody posted a thread about some Chinese company using dead fetuses to sell a product or something like that. So if that were true, then you might have people hustling human embryos for financial gain, and we all know what some people will do for money. No one should "produce" human embryos with the sole purpose of making money from it, but unfortunately people will do it anyway. Pretty sick though.
  • dallas' 4 eva
    dallas' 4 eva Members Posts: 11,216 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Embryonic stem cell research so far has produced no viable treatments for anything YET. Adult Stem Cell research on the other hand could basically allow you to live forever, but the taboo behind the term 'Stem Cell Research' is keeping it from advancing medicine.
  • DarkRaiden
    DarkRaiden Members Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭
    Yes I cosign it fully, from what I know there are no negative consequences and a whole lot of positive ones. Like growing back that guys foot.
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Commence on researching on stem cells, the insurance companies and drug companies are the ones hustling everyone.
  • FucktheIC
    FucktheIC Members Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There's nothing tough about it.

    People who are alive>>>>>>Embryos. That simple.
  • ChromaStoned
    ChromaStoned Members Posts: 938 ✭✭✭
    they can grow a ? ear in a dish from stem cells!-ppl need this ?
  • DarcSkies
    DarcSkies Members Posts: 13,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Im as anti-abortion as they come (just check the MASSACRE thread in the SL_)

    But the reality is abortion is big business, abortion is good for Democrats to scare up votes and Republicans to get the religious vote. And its good for the economy because who wants a bunch of unwanted welfare babies running around? AND it's good for middle-class whites because most people (per capita) who have abortions are young black females (look it up its true) and one thing white people Love is less ? on the planet.

    So lets be realitistic abortion isnt going anywhere countrywide. Maybe the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (Which they're only one vote away from doing BTW) and leave it up to the States. BUt It will always be legal in most states

    So since those unborn human beings are going to die anyway may as well put their dead ? to good use and cure some ? .
  • Amotekun
    Amotekun Members Posts: 7,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Embryonic stem cell research so far has produced no viable treatments for anything YET. Adult Stem Cell research on the other hand could basically allow you to live forever, but the taboo behind the term 'Stem Cell Research' is keeping it from advancing medicine.

    Whats potent in adult stem cells that acts as a cure all immortality code?

    Why isn't it found in embryonic stem cells?
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    DarkRaiden wrote: »
    Yes I cosign it fully, from what I know there are no negative consequences and a whole lot of positive ones. Like growing back that guys foot.

    Yeah exactly why I support stem cell research, but with very strict guidelines such as no embryo research past 1 month. Adult stem cell research is even better and if embryo research is outlawed, than adult stem cells should be used for full capacity.
  • BlackxChild
    BlackxChild Members Posts: 2,916 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Stem cells have been injected into Diabetic patients in America and they have all said it helped them out. By the way theres more than one way to get stem cells, and you ? who try to stop the world from advancing should be shot dead.
  • JJ 1975
    JJ 1975 Members Posts: 336
    I support stem cell research
  • J. Will
    J. Will Members Posts: 2,107 ✭✭✭✭✭
    JJ 1975 wrote: »
    I support stem cell research

  • down2earth
    down2earth Members Posts: 953 ✭✭✭
    No I don't cosign the banning of it. The stigma/propaganda around it is stupid, especially considering how much it could help people. The exploitation of the science is really the only thing i'm worried about. As with everything, America finds a way to make a buck out of everything.
  • sully
    sully Members, Writer Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    People who ban it (and even people who argue for it) generally have no idea about the science behind stem cells.

    The average person should be taken out of the conversation regarding whether it should be used or not, and the decision should be placed in the hands of geneticists, physicians, ethicists, and other researchers whose informed opinions matter on decisions regarding this.

    I don't want a ? like Joe the Plumber having any say in any decisions made about the advancement of science. I'd rather have the people who have studied this stuff for years and know what they're talking about put in their opinions.

    For example, if a group of engineers came forward and said "we can save the nation hundreds of millions in construction costs by decreasing the friction coefficient of roads by 10%, and we wouldn't sacrifice any safety - so let's make it a law", as someone who's not an engineer, my opinion is rather moot on such a point b/c I have no informed opinion to counter that argument, nor do I have the expertise to place sufficient input. But if there is a consensus by the majority of engineers across the country agreeing with said position, then i'm fine as long as all parameters (including the ethical ramifications) are opined on by experts and conclusions are made based off reasoning.
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    sully wrote: »
    People who ban it (and even people who argue for it) generally have no idea about the science behind stem cells.

    The average person should be taken out of the conversation regarding whether it should be used or not, and the decision should be placed in the hands of geneticists, physicians, ethicists, and other researchers whose informed opinions matter on decisions regarding this.

    I don't want a ? like Joe the Plumber having any say in any decisions made about the advancement of science. I'd rather have the people who have studied this stuff for years and know what they're talking about put in their opinions.

    For example, if a group of engineers came forward and said "we can save the nation hundreds of millions in construction costs by decreasing the friction coefficient of roads by 10%, and we wouldn't sacrifice any safety - so let's make it a law", as someone who's not an engineer, my opinion is rather moot on such a point b/c I have no informed opinion to counter that argument, nor do I have the expertise to place sufficient input. But if there is a consensus by the majority of engineers across the country agreeing with said position, then i'm fine as long as all parameters (including the ethical ramifications) are opined on by experts and conclusions are made based off reasoning.

    Do you realize how fallacious that is?

  • sully
    sully Members, Writer Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭✭✭
    RodrigueZz wrote: »
    sully wrote: »
    People who ban it (and even people who argue for it) generally have no idea about the science behind stem cells.

    The average person should be taken out of the conversation regarding whether it should be used or not, and the decision should be placed in the hands of geneticists, physicians, ethicists, and other researchers whose informed opinions matter on decisions regarding this.

    I don't want a ? like Joe the Plumber having any say in any decisions made about the advancement of science. I'd rather have the people who have studied this stuff for years and know what they're talking about put in their opinions.

    For example, if a group of engineers came forward and said "we can save the nation hundreds of millions in construction costs by decreasing the friction coefficient of roads by 10%, and we wouldn't sacrifice any safety - so let's make it a law", as someone who's not an engineer, my opinion is rather moot on such a point b/c I have no informed opinion to counter that argument, nor do I have the expertise to place sufficient input. But if there is a consensus by the majority of engineers across the country agreeing with said position, then i'm fine as long as all parameters (including the ethical ramifications) are opined on by experts and conclusions are made based off reasoning.

    Do you realize how fallacious that is?

    To have experts in fields come to scientific and reasoned consensuc decisions in matters that determine quality of life? I'd much rather a decision or law be enacted based on their consensus view without the clutterance of Joe the Plumber or John Redneck, since Joe the Plumber or John Redneck are just arguing against without any valid, informed reason to be against such a ruling other than "that sounds like something I saw in a movie once!".
  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    sully wrote: »
    RodrigueZz wrote: »
    sully wrote: »
    People who ban it (and even people who argue for it) generally have no idea about the science behind stem cells.

    The average person should be taken out of the conversation regarding whether it should be used or not, and the decision should be placed in the hands of geneticists, physicians, ethicists, and other researchers whose informed opinions matter on decisions regarding this.

    I don't want a ? like Joe the Plumber having any say in any decisions made about the advancement of science. I'd rather have the people who have studied this stuff for years and know what they're talking about put in their opinions.

    For example, if a group of engineers came forward and said "we can save the nation hundreds of millions in construction costs by decreasing the friction coefficient of roads by 10%, and we wouldn't sacrifice any safety - so let's make it a law", as someone who's not an engineer, my opinion is rather moot on such a point b/c I have no informed opinion to counter that argument, nor do I have the expertise to place sufficient input. But if there is a consensus by the majority of engineers across the country agreeing with said position, then i'm fine as long as all parameters (including the ethical ramifications) are opined on by experts and conclusions are made based off reasoning.

    Do you realize how fallacious that is?

    To have experts in fields come to scientific and reasoned consensuc decisions in matters that determine quality of life? I'd much rather a decision or law be enacted based on their consensus view without the clutterance of Joe the Plumber or John Redneck, since Joe the Plumber or John Redneck are just arguing against without any valid, informed reason to be against such a ruling other than "that sounds like something I saw in a movie once!".

    So you're basing your genetic fallacy on a hasty generalization fallacy?

  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    LOL, average people should have a right to say something about, but researched it thoroughly though. It shouldn't take long for you to know the gist of it. You don't need to know the deep technical know how, but know the general information enough to have a decent opinion on it.

    People who think that only so called "experts" should call all the shots that shows cognitive laziness and maybe you should be out the picture, but we need to stay informed and learn something new.