It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stem-Cell Research

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I thought I might as well put this here.

I think stem-cell research is something that should continue to go on but not by getting the cells from unborn fetuses. They should just collect the cells from the umbilical cords or the amniotic fluid or even from baby teeth according to this website says: ISSCR :: Stem-Cell Research

Well what are ya'll guy's opinions on this subject? Do ya'll think the government should continue to fund this research?

[edit on 12/3/2004 by hatchedcross]




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I'm suprised no one has replied to this. I thought stem-cell research was a bigger issue than it apparently is....oh well.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Here's a debate on this issue from our Debate Forum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let the discussion begin.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I would like to thank you for pointing that out intrepid. I'll defenitly read it when I have some more time.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Stem cell research offer many great possibilities that will benefit humankind, and definitely the cells should be sourced from umbilical cords which only dry up and get thrown away. IMO stem cell research = a good thing.

As to whether taxpayers should fund it ... dunno - can they afford to, can they afford not to? When you take into account the huge expense of medical treatment of those diseases that stem cell research aim to cure, maybe its worth investing in?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Oops...hit the wrong button...lol.

Anyways stem-cell research shouldn't be taken from fetuses just the umbilical cords of babies that are born...with as many births there are a year there would be a nice supply of them.

[edit on 12/8/2004 by hatchedcross]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I see no reason why governments around the world shouldnt fund stem cell research. Why not not take cells from an unborn fetuses?



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
i dont give two hoots where they get the stem cells from - I am of the opinion that this research will eventually lead to cures for some of the major diseases that we face today



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Embryonic stem cells don't really work and it requires killing a baby to get them.

I am all for adult stem cell research. Apparently this works a LOT better, and you don't have to kill to get them!



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
If I remember correctly, aren't they able to get the cells from an aborted fetus as well? If that's the case, then why not use that? Regardless of whether abortion is in the right or not, at least get some use out of it while it's happening...



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
If I remember correctly, aren't they able to get the cells from an aborted fetus as well? If that's the case, then why not use that? Regardless of whether abortion is in the right or not, at least get some use out of it while it's happening...


Because it's unethical, like using the collagen of aborted babies in cosmetics.


Besides, adult stem cells work. Embryonic ones really don't work so well.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Because it's unethical, like using the collagen of aborted babies in cosmetics.



It's more ethical to just toss the fetus? Like I said, why not get some use out of it instead of it taking space in a landfill?



Besides, adult stem cells work. Embryonic ones really don't work so well.


I probably am wrong on this, but I thought they hadn't done enough research to really determine what results either will generate. I mean, while there is ton of potential with stem cells--adult or embryonic--isn't there also a possibility they could be worthless, no matter where they came from?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1

Originally posted by Amethyst
Because it's unethical, like using the collagen of aborted babies in cosmetics.



It's more ethical to just toss the fetus? Like I said, why not get some use out of it instead of it taking space in a landfill?


When you die, do you want your body tossed in a landfill?




Besides, adult stem cells work. Embryonic ones really don't work so well.


I probably am wrong on this, but I thought they hadn't done enough research to really determine what results either will generate. I mean, while there is ton of potential with stem cells--adult or embryonic--isn't there also a possibility they could be worthless, no matter where they came from?


Look at this article.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
When you die, do you want your body tossed in a landfill?


For one, I don't think I'll notice what people do with my body; throw it in a landfill, cremate me, stuff me and stand me next to a jukebox in a bar (which is actually in my will, but health issues and all...) I'm not going to be paying much attention.

Second of all, I'd rather they didn't throw my body in a landfill if there was any use they could get from it at all. I've been an organ donor since I got my first driver's license, and I'm sure I would rest much more peacefully knowing I'm not just worm food.



Look at this article.


Stem cell useage is something I've mainly just considered the ethical aspects of based on the arguments I've heard. I still haven't heard much in line of actual result details, just a lot of doctors saying it's helped with therapy and can cure all sorts of diseases. I'm not saying it wouldn't work or not, just that there's been all sorts of miracle cures touted over the years which fizzled into nothing. Not that I want to see this happen with stem cells, but it would make all the ethics arguments kinda pointless.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Do they really use aborted fetuses in cosmetics?
That's really gross. I'm not exactly passionately pro life (or choice either) but that's wrong. Which brands do that?



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Here's the rundown:

Humans (like other mammals) develop a single cell called a zygote, which is the result of the single sperm fertilizing an egg. The zygote is surrounded by a strong membrane called the zona pellucida. Now another process begins called cleavage, which increases the amount of cells within the zona pellucida. As the number of cells continue to increase the outermost ones secrete water into the middle of the zona pellucida. Now as the number of cells reaches the 40-150 range, a central fluid filled cavity is formed. Next the zona pellucida beings to degenerate and the cell mass increases in size and is now called the blastocyst.

It is the inner cell mass of the human blastocyst which consists of the undifferentiated cells known as stem cells. These undifferentiated cells are pluripotent, meaning, they have the potential to develop into any type of human tissue. This is why many scientist believe them to have the most potential value from a research perspective. However, extraction of these cells destroys the blastocyst.

NOTE: The term "embryo" applies to the later stages of development. Technically the blastocyst is destroyed and not the embryo.

Regardless of whatever the heck you want to call it, the underlying question which remains a hot debate is whether one considers a blastocyst to be a person. The issue here is, once one considers the blastocyst to be merely "a form of human life" but not a person, then you step onto the slippery slope of when should the developing life be labeled a "person."

So who should decide this? Should the catholic church decide? The government? The stem cell researcher? Who?

Personally, I feel the persons who furnish the eggs and sperm that become the blastocyst should be permitted to decide whether or not the blastocyst can be used for steam cell reasearch and, under what conditions. I really like this view alot. Isn't that what the USA is all about? Freedom...let it ring! I think the persons should decide and then sign off on it. If they don't sign off on it then I don't see a problem with extra embroyos being subject to the whim of the government, the church, the mad scientist etc. What could be more fair than that?? Do you agree?

Source

[edit on 22-12-2006 by Scramjet76]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
The rate of technological change is about to zoom upward in a dizzying pace:



Stemcells are but a part of the new model for longevity enhancement(find new model here) :

www.sens.org...

PS:Be sure to read all on page

Soon people will be able to do genetic manipulation at home with the help of an AI











[edit on 1/7/2007 by bodebliss]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join