Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

First Embryonic Stem Cell Trial Gets FDA Approval

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by paperplanes
By Church (note the capitalization) I mean the aggregate body of the Christian faith, ostensibly united in its opposition to this. I am not speaking of your personal center for worship.


I see, and what does The Church say about this?


The reigning opinion is that embryonic stem cells, regarded as equals to any human, are worthy of the reverence afforded to you and utilizing them for research actively usurps their rights as humans. One need not adhere to a particular religion to understand the opinions of its adherents.


Originally posted by paperplanes
Unfortunately, opponents of stem cell research frequently ignore in vitro fertilization, despite the fact that it presents the same ethical issues.



Not exactly. It's the difference between riding a moped and driving a pickup truck. One goes a lot faster and uses a whole lot more gas. I can start a thread on the irresposibility of tossing embryos surely, but this is a bigger problem in scope and volume.


In vitro fertilization is responsible for the disposal of thousands of embryos each year. Additionally, thousands are kept as "surplus" at these clinics. These embryos are not discarded as part of a process that attempts to cure disease, but as a process created to satisfy the longings of infertile couples. And yet you consider IVF to be less of an ethical issue?

[edit on 23/1/09 by paperplanes]




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplanes
The reigning opinion is that embryonic stem cells, regarded as equals to any human, are worthy of the reverence afforded to you and utilizing them for research actively usurps their rights as humans. One need not adhere to a particular religion to understand the opinions of its adherents.


Interestingly enough, neither my church nor Church made any mention of embryonic stem cell research. I found the article this morning, made no calls, nor consulted my Bible to find out when life begins. The 'life' definition I used and use is according to the many textbooks my university and highschool have handed me over these years. Am I to reject all those texts and science itself? I don't know any doctors who would leave the operating room unsuccessfully who say, "Ah well, lost another hunk of meat".

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
To me the whole thing sounds like using murder victims (that don't even get the respect of being labeled murder victims, just 'cells') for scientific progress.

It reminds me of Elizabeth of Bathory who would kill virgins and bathe in their blood to maintain her youth. Or maybe the Holocaust victims who were experimented upon. That research is 'locked and banned' from being used due to the unethical way it was discovered.

You (general sense of 'You,' not targeted to the OP) can try to find the differences between stem cell research and the above two analogies I use above to make you feel better and there will be a few differences but at the core, it's the same.


You are the second person in this thread to make this inane comment. The comparison is just unforgivable.

This is a blastocyst, from which an embryonic stem cell is taken:


These are subjects of Nazi experimentation:



I can't locate the words to express how infuriating this is.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplanes
In vitro fertilization is responsible for the disposal of thousands of embryos each year. Additionally, thousands are kept as "surplus" at these clinics. These embryos are not discarded as part of a process that attempts to cure disease, but as a process created to satisfy the longings of infertile couples. And yet you consider IVF to be less of an ethical issue?


Yes, as you've essentially it there is a warehouse for future life, future parents, etc. If there's another use by ripping them apart we go from having a hope for life versus destruction. Not only that, but there's now a higher demand/pricetag on these embryos because they can be utilized by another industry. Higher demand means seeking out greater supply. I only took first level economics, but having ten years at a bank is very revealing as to how the desire for things has people slinging credit and loans to get the things they want...businesses especially.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplanes
You are the second person in this thread to make this inane comment. The comparison is just unforgivable.

This is a blastocyst, from which an embryonic stem cell is taken:


These are subjects of Nazi experimentation:


I can't locate the words to express how infuriating this is.


One is younger than the other. Do I have to explain why a blastocyst 'don't look like no baby'?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by paperplanes
The reigning opinion is that embryonic stem cells, regarded as equals to any human, are worthy of the reverence afforded to you and utilizing them for research actively usurps their rights as humans. One need not adhere to a particular religion to understand the opinions of its adherents.


Interestingly enough, neither my church nor Church made any mention of embryonic stem cell research. I found the article this morning, made no calls, nor consulted my Bible to find out when life begins. The 'life' definition I used and use is according to the many textbooks my university and highschool have handed me over these years. Am I to reject all those texts and science itself? I don't know any doctors who would leave the operating room unsuccessfully who say, "Ah well, lost another hunk of meat".


Are you purposely ignoring my every reply? SENTIENCE. SENTIENCE. SENTIENCE. Shall I send you a bright and shiny Webster's the clarify the definition? I am well aware of what science qualifies as "alive". Embryos are certainly alive. The beetle I put outside this morning is alive as well, as is my beloved cat, asleep on the chair behind me. Yet none of these would take precedence over the well-being of a walking, talking, feeling person.

I'm baffled that any explanation is even needed to convince you that a stem cell derived from a blastocyst is less of a human than a person walking down the street.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by paperplanes
 


If it helps you sleep at night then think along those lines.

Or you can get closer to the truth and see where they really come from:

images.google.com...

*Warning links to graphic images.

So, no. Sorry. Your refutation fails. Not much of a difference is there.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by paperplanes
You are the second person in this thread to make this inane comment. The comparison is just unforgivable.

This is a blastocyst, from which an embryonic stem cell is taken:


These are subjects of Nazi experimentation:


I can't locate the words to express how infuriating this is.


One is younger than the other. Do I have to explain why a blastocyst 'don't look like no baby'?


How pathetic. I don't see any point in furthering an argument with someone who states, with clear conscience, that the primary difference of the above is "one is younger than the other".



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by paperplanes
 


If it helps you sleep at night then think along those lines.

Or you can get closer to the truth and see where they really come from:

images.google.com...

*Warning links to graphic images.

So, no. Sorry. Your refutation fails. Not much of a difference is there.


Sweetheart (and I hate to use condescending pet names, truly I do), have you ever taken a science course? Are you aware of the fetal stage of the babies in the pictures you've linked? Are you aware that those would have absolutely no use in embryonic stem cell research, the key being that they aren't embryonic stem cells? Your argument is moot.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplanes
Sweetheart (and I hate to use condescending pet names, truly I do), have you ever taken a science course?


My degree is in biology, perhaps I'm 'qualified' to field the question?


Originally posted by paperplanes
Are you aware of the fetal stage of the babies in the pictures you've linked? Are you aware that those would have absolutely no use in embryonic stem cell research, the key being that they aren't embryonic stem cells? Your argument is moot.


It isn't moot. Embryos become fetuses when not killed beforehand. Fetuses become babies when not killed beforehand. Babies become adults when not killed beforehand. Do I get an A+?

[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Originally posted by FlyersFan
It is completely immoral and unethical to kill one group of innocent and helpless people in order to MAYBE find something to help another group. That's the bottom line.





[edit on 1/23/2009 by FlyersFan]

I'll go one step further- It's completely immoral and unethical to kill one group of innocent and helpless people even if you can definitely find something to help another group.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
My degree is in biology, perhaps I'm 'qualified' to field the question?

It isn't moot. Embryos become fetuses when not killed beforehand. Fetuses become babies when not killed beforehand. Babies become adults when not killed beforehand. Do I get an A+?


No, I'm afraid not. The topic this thread is focused upon is embryonic stem cells used in stem cell research. The cells used in embryonic stem cell research do not become fetuses, they do not become babies, they do not become toddlers, teenagers or adults. To use aborted fetuses as arguments against embryonic stem cell research is to conflate this subject with abortion and deny the very science of just what stem cell research is.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by paperplanes
 


Notice the mix. Not all of them are what you claim. Pardon me for not sifting through them so I could find the targeted stages.

Specified from a recent case:

12 Week Fetus

And we know the fetus has to be destroyed so what else is there to discuss?

You can pretend it's a clump of cells. But let's say someone kills me and my corpse is used for research. All they need is my blood. So they show you some images of my blood cells under the microscope but never show you my corpse. Then say, 'See?! This wasn't a person. Just cells under a microscope.'

Doesn't work.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Sorry but I am so happy with what I have seen so far that nothing can tarnish my good mood right now since Obama has starting to target many things that I for one agree with.

So I am just walking in the clouds right now.


do you even fully know what the hell you are talking about?? lmao Just curious... it sounds like another person who, perhaps at first seemed they might know, but then once they were confronted by someone who really did understand, they throw out the "obama makes me happy" card and then bail out of the conversation before the word discombobulate comes up.. bc though you can look it up on dictionary.com, your nails are still wet and garsh darn it.. learning is such a drag!


haha.. was just curious. sorry about the derail.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplanes
No, I'm afraid not.


I figured you say that. Good thing for me you're not the university that gave me my degree.


Originally posted by paperplanes
The topic this thread is focused upon is embryonic stem cells used in stem cell research.


Very good, I'll give you an A for that answer.


Originally posted by paperplanes
The cells used in embryonic stem cell research do not become fetuses, they do not become babies, they do not become toddlers, teenagers or adults.


True, because when you suck out the stem cells it cannot become any of the above.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by paperplanes
 


Notice the mix. Not all of them are what you claim. Pardon me for not sifting through them so I could find the targeted stages.

Specified from a recent case:

12 Week Fetus

And we know the fetus has to be destroyed so what else is there to discuss?

You can pretend it's a clump of cells. But let's say someone kills me and my corpse is used for research. All they need is my blood. So they show you some images of my blood cells under the microscope but never show you my corpse. Then say, 'See?! This wasn't a person. Just cells under a microscope.'

Doesn't work.


You don't understand what an embryonic stem cell is. It is not taken from a fetus. It is taken during a stage of embryonic development when the embryo is a blastocyst. No one is "pretending" it is a blastocyst, or that the blastocyst looks like the clump of cells that it is--this is not a matter of opinion. It is what it is, and a blastocyst is what it is. The pictures you continue to reference are not blastocysts and have no role in embryonic stem cell research.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by paperplanes
 


Wrong. I know exactly what it is. The fetus has to die to get the cells. Again, like my analogy above where only my blood cells are used. Just because it's the cells that are needed does not dismiss where they come from or how they are obtained.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Wrong. I know exactly what it is. The fetus has to die to get the cells. Again, like my analogy above where only my blood cells are used. Just because it's the cells that are needed does not dismiss where they come from or how they are obtained.


You clearly do not know. No fetus has developed, and thus no fetus dies to retrieve any cells.

en.wikipedia.org...

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo known as a blastocyst. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4–5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50–150 cells.


en.wikipedia.org...

The blastocyst is the structure formed in early embryogenesis, after the formation of the blastocoel, but before implantation. It possesses an inner cell mass, or embryoblast which subsequently forms the embryo proper, and an outer layer of cells, or trophoblast which later forms the placenta.


www.medterms.com...

Blastocyst: A thin-walled hollow structure in early embryonic development that contains a cluster of cells called the inner cell mass from which the embryo arises.


stemcells.nih.gov...

The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel.


If you continue to insist that a fetus has developed, I don't see any point in continuing with our discussion.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Yes I do understand what in the hell I am talking about do you?

This issue has been exhausted in these board for the years I have been a member here

My daughter has two bachelors degree in this subject.

So yes, I know what in the hell I am talking about do you?

I welcome any women in this boards that are against stem cell research with embryonic tissue to adopt them become the incubators to those embryos and start bringing them into full gestation period

because otherwise they will end in the ovens as discarded tissue.

I will even applaud the gesture.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by paperplanes
 


I know what a blastocyst is. Not what I was getting at.


British scientists have been given permission to treat stroke patients with injections of cells from an aborted baby, it emerged last night.

In a world first, stem cells from a 12-week-old foetus will be injected into patients' brains.


British scientists given permission to treat stroke victims with stem cells from aborted babies

Again: 12 week old fetus.

You're acting like 'La-de-da just 4-5 day old cells. No human has been harmed in the making of this film. Any link between the cells and a real person is purely coincidental.'

It's not always 4-5 day old cells. And just as a curious side note, how many women know they're pregnant and get an abortion in five days?

But the above is all besides the point. The real issue is: How do you obtain them? What must be done to obtain them? We all know the answer to that one.

This is my last post to you. It's getting us nowhere and is as pointless as an abortion debate. No one's mind is ever changed.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join