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.
Originally posted by shearder
The irony of this all is we are battling overpopulation in some countries.
We are heading for a world where there will not be enough food for the masses.
We hand out birth control to the masses in underprivileged countries and here we want to produce human in a lab. hmmmm... what's next?
Originally posted by Ariana9
I read somewhere that in the UK, the scientists want to creat chimeras.
Originally posted by Ariana9
I read somewhere that in the UK, the scientists want to creat chimeras.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
But, maybe the progression of science is not their true agenda. Only in that case does this fascination with embryonic technology make sense.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Hmmm, manufactured stem cells? That would present an interesting debate, if it were possible.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
These are not humans they are small cells, you cannot compare a living human being to a small collection of cells in a petrie dish!
So basically until it pops out and calls me dad it isn't human.
provided we don't stick a brain in there, of course
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Since you are intent on bringing it up, the question of ethics from my perspective concerns not when life begins (it doesn't, it never ends; there is no point at which the sperm, egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus is not alive), when it is human (again, there is no point where any human cells have developed into anything else), but rather when sentience begins. At which point can the developing child feel pain and experience self-awareness? We have no answer to this, and in the absence of reliable data, yes, I tend to err on the side of caution.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, I know you meant this tongue-in-cheek, but this is exactly why I try to stay away from the morality issue. I am actually greatly impressed with the advances being made in stem cell research, and would consider the stopping of such research to be a crime against humanity. I also believe in the right of every living thing to survive, including any developing child which has the above-referenced sentience. So when I first heard of stem cell research, I was torn between two conflicting positions. When I discovered the truth about the research and the fact that adult stem cells are actually being used to cure disease while embryonic stem cells have not yielded such promising results, I realized my conflict was unwarranted.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yet, it is very easy for humans as a society to harden stances, especially those which touch deep moral values. I have no objection to using human tissue cultures for research; that would be a ridiculous position IMHO. I am also strongly opposed to partial-birth abortions, for what I think are obvious reasons. In between we have a gray area which bears consideration from objective viewpoints. Yet when we ignore controversies, we invite hardened opinions from society which will serve to hinder progress.
I want the progress, I just want it to be unhindered and acceptable to societal values... ALL societal values.
In their most potent form, in the embryo, they have the ability to create any tissue in the body, but cells with more limited, but still useful, abilities have been found in the organs of adults.
I wasn't intent on bringing anything up, the arguement against using embryonic stem cells seems to be that it's a human
That was my point, that they don't have to kill embryos in order to do the research. Adult stem cells carry no controversy with them and have been proven to be much, much more effective. They're also cheaper to produce.
The point I am arguing is that there are no advantages to using embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells. There are definite advantages to using adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells. So why are we even bringing up this debate over a technology that is shown by medical research to be inferior in stem cell research?
Yes, there are differences, but in tests so far the advantages of adult stem cells outweigh the disadvantages many fold.
I still contend that this is a moot point, since there are other, more reliable means to obtain better stem cells which carry no controversy and no hindrance to research.