IVF

there are two ways to get stem cells;

1) to kill an embryo
or
2) take it out an adults spinal fluid

killing an embryo has been proven the best.
i still think that taking a life to save another life is both moral and immoral.

 

But there are good embryos and bad embryos. Hitler, for example, was surely a bad embryo.

And what about trees? Are there 'good trees' and 'bad trees?' Either way, they are still being chopped down. It's inevitable.

What about good and bad grain? We should stop eating bread because it came from good grain.

EDIT: And I corrected your post for you. [/b][/quote]
hitler's embryo wasn't bad. it was sense of morality and decent respect that was bad.

 

Yes, in bone marrow, and some other things that I forget at the present moment. But, like someone said, emberyo's have proven the most efficient way of obtaining stem cells.

 

The problem with non-embryonic stem cells is that they can only become one type of cell; brain blood cells will become new brain cells, and that's all they will ever become.

Stem cells from embryos are unipotent; they can become any type of cell, whether it be brain, nerve, etc.

 

True, but don't you think that someone else would have eventually pulled off what he did?

 

Alright, I wrote a whole report on ESCR (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) for TSA (Technology Student Association) in the Ag-Biotech event. Here is that whole paper:

Embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) is, as defined by www.dictionary.com, “biological research on stem cells derived from embryos and their use in medicine,” but what does this mean? Simply put, ESCR is conducting research on a stem cell, a primitive cell that can be manipulated to form most of the 220 different cells in the body, from an embryo, an organism with potential to become a human, and using the results for the benefit of medicine.
ESCR has many benefits to society; however, some people believe it is wrong to obtain stem cells from an embryo. They reason that the embryo the first stage of a human being, rather than having only the potential to become human. Therefore, these people disagree with taking stem cells out of an embryo since it “murders” a human being. Due to the controversy about this issue, the U.S. government has decided not to fund ESCR. However, adult stem cells, while being of much less use, may still be used for research. If embryonic stem cells could be used, it is likely that heart disease, diabetes, certain, cancers, and many other diseases could be cured.
The pro-life organizations and individuals protesting further research see it as entirely immoral to do so, even when approximately 100,000 embryos that are frozen will almost certainly die anyways. They believe that just letting them die is somehow different from killing them for potential gain to all of society. They won’t let one embryo die for the sake of 100 million people.
Of course, there are solutions to this problem. Since the frozen embryos are up for adoption, it could be announced to infertile couples that an embryo is going to be used for research if no one adopts it within a set time period. That way, if someone doesn’t wish to have it destroyed, they can do something about it. Also, if someone would privately fund ESCR, that would be an alternative. We live in the United States of America, and therefore, we would have the choice to decide if we want to use it for our own benefit.
ESCR could very possibly alter medicinal practices in the future, but today, we must decide if we will ever start governmentally funded research again. For as many people there are that believe ESCR is a wonderful idea, and that it should be governmentally funded, there are just as many people who think it is wrong and that we should ban it altogether. It is important that we act now, for if we make no decision, the embryos will most probably die due to mechanical malfunctions in their freezers. Excess embryos from attempts to make an infertile couple pregnant are destroyed immediately, kept in a freezer for future use, or used for training inexperienced doctors. Among the 100,000 or so embryos in cryogenic storage, a minute number will survive. Either we use them now for adoption purposes, or we use them now for ESCR. If we take no action, they die, and if we conduct research on them, they are destroyed. Of course, if they are adopted, they will almost certainly live, but would you rather save 100,000 potential lives, or 100 million human lives that have already been born?
ESCR can treat a wide variety of diseases, including diabetes, leukemia, and various forms of cancer. It has many potential benefits, but the cost might be too critical. It all depends on a person’s point of view as to where human life begins. Some people believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, which therefore means an embryo is a human. Others, however, feel that human life begins later, in pregnancy. This would mean that an embryo wouldn’t be a human. Since it is unethical to take human life in any circumstance, there is large controversy over this issue. Some steps have already been made to reach a decision. California passed the SB 253 bill, which allows any kind of stem cell research. In the future, it is possible other states will do something similar. Another possible outcome would be to have a national vote as to whether ESCR should be allowed throughout the nation. It could even go down to just being state-based, where if your state wishes to allow ESCR, then your state, and only your state, has decided that. The decision is yours to make, so voice your opinion to whomever you can.

 

As for me, the whole "life of an embryo" issue isn't my reason for being skeptical if not altogether against Eugenics and genetics in general, here's an excerpt from an excellent essay by activist Jeremy Rifkin to explain my point...I don't know if this is directly related but the topic but it deals with stem cell research too:

http://www.barglow.com/rifkin-anticloning.htm

 

I concur, yet others do not. They see it as unethical for whatever reason. But typically, it is their religious belief. And that is why President George W. Dumbass doesn't want it allowed. Ever hear of something called Separation of Church and State? Hello? Bush? NO! DON'T PRESS THAT BUTTON! NOW THE MISSLES HAVE LAUNCHED! AAAAAH!
...yeah. Bush won't pass it because of religious issues, which is entirely unconstitutional.

 

personally....im quite neutrel aabt hte situation but sometimes doing the right thing isnt doing the right thing....etc.

 

okay.first of all, there is a very big difference between cloning and stem cell therapy. when you clone something, such as a sheep for example, that clone sheep is the exact genetic replica of the sheep from which the original cells were taken. the beauty of stem cell therapy however is that the cells which are taken, stem cells, are what's called undifferentiated, which means they can change their biology to be a specific type of cell, say a liver cell. once they have changed that means they are differentiated, and say you had a damaged liver, youve got all these little stem cells ready and raring to go and fix it because they can change into fresh new liver cells and replace the ones which are damaged!! thats why theres all this hooha about it, because its one of the most amazing scientific advances theres been in medicine, or whatever you wanna call, for ages. i mean, this could help so many people with so many different diseases which are so far incurable!! its true that these stem cells are taken from human embryos, and its also true that they can be taken from adult human stem cells, but so far tests, experiments have shown that the ASCs are not as effective as the ESCs.some countries are looking at different laws to govern the use of embryos, such as prohibiting the creation of embryos specifically for SCR, but allowing the use of any "excess" embryos, ie. where the sperm and egg and donated by two people who dont know each other and have no intention of using them for reproduction purposes. also, i dunno bout other countries, but in new zealand theyre setting up whats called a "cord bank" which really is an ingenious idea. stem cells are taken from the umbilical cord AT BIRTH, frozen, and say the baby later on down the line gets really sick, well look!! their own stem cells are ready and waiting to fix them!! it's just brilliant. of course it costs, but hey. whats the price on life. and no embryos have to be killed. i dont know why more people arent doing this.
so....in short......stem cell therapy does raise some very interesting ethical questions, and i agree a LOT more research needs to be done before we allow anything and make any laws, but like mostly everything there are other options which can be explored, and ways of compromising. but i definately dont think we should just throw this new and exciting treatment out the window because "foetuses are people too" . theyre not.
anyone still interested go to http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10195.html and read the online book "stem cells and the future of regenerative medicine", itll clear up heaps and it's real helpful.

 

Actually, no, it's not unconstitutional. Contrary to popular belief, the constitution does not say the words "separation of church and state". It does, however, prevent the government from creating a national church that everyone must join.

But I'm sure someone could interpret the clause in some weird way that says that religion cannot play a part in law-making.


AND..


<!--QuoteBegin--tunnelvision
...experiments have shown that the ASCs are not as effective as the ESCs.[/quote]

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent (can be turned into any type of cell), while adult stem cells are unipotent (can be turned into only one type of cell).

So.. using adult stem cells would be far less effective.