Stem cell research has become a widespread controversy within the general public, the political spectrum, and the scientific and religious communities. Though there is a wide array of issues within the topic of stem cell research, the central concern on which the rest of the controversy depends is the question of when life actually begins. This uncertainty is the basis of whether or not the incredible benefits of stem cell research outweigh its moral ramifications.

The question of when life begins stems from the means in which scientists obtain pluripotent stem cells. They can be harvested from an embryo that has already been through conception or from a cloned embryo, where an organism’s cell is infused with a donor’s egg. In either case, the embryo has to be destroyed in order to collect its stem cells. The issue of when life begins comes in at this point. Many religious leaders would argue that destroying the embryo in question would be the same as taking a human life in that they believe that life begins at conception.

Which side of this controversy are YOU on?

Really, NO FLAMING...

this isn't actually about cloning.... this is about stem cell research and whether or not it is morally or ethically right to do it.

So, maybe we can change the name of the thread?

And, I'm torn on the issue of stem cell research. I've heard there is a way for stem cells to be harvested through umbilical cord blood without hurting the embryo... but maybe I'm thinking of something else.

I'll change the thread title.... Okay, I changed it...

No, geeo, that is stem ceell you're thinking of. The umbilical cord is full of viable stem cells, and if you take them from the cord, it in no way hurts the baby or baby-to-be. I actually think it's a bit ridiculous that people can't understand that, and that they are so against research that could do so much good because they don't realize that simple fact. I say that they should definitely continue stem cell research as long as they are doing it in a way that causes no harm to the baby.

I completely agree with hypermonkey. As long as they're going about it in the right way there is absolutely no reason why we should not be doing this. People need to stop being stubborn about these types of things.

There is more stem cells in an embryo the umbilical cord, so an embryo is a better harvest. Every person also has their own stem cells, which can be obtained from your bone marrow. George Bush made it so no stem cell research was allowed at all, not even from umbilical cords or bone marrow, so the USA is 8 years behind the rest of the world in stem cell research. I fully support stem cell research, since it allows us to regrow organs, cure comas, diabetes, ulcers, and nearly every other kind of organ failure. People are scared that women will get pregnant and sell their embryos, but in order to prevent that, make it illegal to pay money for an aborted embryo! Have law enforcement monitor abortion and stem cell research facilities, to ensure that no shady deals get made along the way. Solved that issue, dumbies.

I think we should also take stem cells from the aborted embryos and fetuses of women already getting abortions, but do not pay for them. That way, we get more stem cells from a process that is already being undergone. That might lead to the issue of if abortion is allowed or not, but regardless of whether or not it should be, as long as it is, we should harvest in that way.

First, the controversy is over embryonic stem cell research. There are stem cells that are not from embryos, but they are already partially developed and harder to work with. Second, if we are aborting fetuses anyways, we might as well use them to further medicine.

Not much I can say about this. You guys pretty much got everything covered. But I will say this- People need to think of the implications and advances that will be made through that research. Is one embryo worth more than saving 1000 lives, or are 1000 lives worth more than saving an embryo. To me, life begins with a beating heart. But even then it's not much of one. Before that, the "embryo" is nothing more than a collection of of growing cells. Almost similar to cancer or a tumor. One might argue that it is life beginning right there. However, there are collections of growing cells growing in our bodies everyday until we die. Every day. The difference between a "collection" and an embryo is that the latter is supporting itself. Whatever stage stem cells are taken is what my opinion on the subject would stand for.

I am against stem cell research due to the fact that embryo's are used. Think of all the death that comes from this.

Would you hesitate to kill a parasite, virus or disease in order to use it to help others?
I would say most people would not, and this is virtually no different.
We are not talking about "life" and "death" as these particular parasites are not allowed to grow to the point where they can even be considered "life".

And if a woman wants to get pregnant so that she can help this research and make a little money, well it's her body.
If you really must have a complain make it that growings must be supervised, that if the woman decides she wants the thing she can continue and make abortion clinics free if the patient wants to let the clinic use the remains.

DarkHyren : "Would you hesitate to kill a parasite, virus or disease in order to use it to help others?"
Did you just compare me and everyone else here to a f***ing leech?

BTowns : Consider this: You have a bigger brain and thus more brain cells than a lab rat. If I'm doing a scientific study and I need brain cells, should I kill you to get to them? No? Why not? You're a better harvest, aren't you?

You people need to understand the important distinction here: when you kill a fetus to take stem cells from it, you're killing a human life. If it's not living, how is it able to process energy and grow? Aren't those the criteria for life? And if it's not a human, you tell me what it is. What does its DNA register as? An elephant?

People are such hypocrites. We condemn murder but if the subject is just not old enough we call it "science" or "medicinal intervention" or whatever you want to call killing embryos now. Consider this: You used to be one of those things, and now you're qualified as a "human." Where did the magical change take place where all of a sudden you're a human being?

And now we're killing embryos because we want a certain kind of *cell* to study? I'm sorry, that's not just murder, it's mutilation as well. You're cutting up babies just to perform scientific studies. If there's a way to perform the studies without ending a life, shouldn't we take it? What kind of scientific advances could we possibly be making if we're killing people to get to it?

Come to think of it, didn't we condemn Mengele for this kind of thing? Look him up. He killed people to perform scientific studies on them. What's the difference here?

I wish people would think instead of just quoting other people.

Crawldragon : No, I compared the undeveloped form humans have in the womb to, as you put it, a leech.
Though there are cases where I would say certain fully developed humans are like that.
But no, I was not talking about the fully grown human.
People cut down trees, and they are living, but it is not the same as being sentient life.
They eat eggs from chickens. Those could have grown into developed life forms rather then just embryos.
Well it's the same for undeveloped animals like humans.

If you perfer, fine, I don't care, "murder" these non sentient undevolped science projects.
In my scenario they are only grown for that purpose anyway, and if humans grow baby rats just to cut open then why not baby humans?
Because it's somehow different and acceptable to do that to something humans percieve as a "lower life form"?
I know plenty of humans that make some rats look like pretty nice people.

Oh, and guess what? Aparently it's possible to harvest stem cells from embryos without harming the embryo at all.
It can even be done in such a way that the embryo can come to full term.
But since this research isn't allowed over in America I suppose most Americans wouldn't know that.
And since you mention elephants, did you know the embryo doesn't even need to be human?
Stem cells are a blank slate, they contain only minute traces of the host dna, traces which can be removed.

I'm just debating a point of view, something I'm entitled to considering what section this is, not flaming anyone, so please calm down and quit the attitude.

While I think the idea of getting pregnant to abort for money is a bit... well... tasteless, I am 100% fine with Stem Cell research. As DarkHyren said, it can be done without harm, so what is the problem?

On the pointing out hypocrisy note: Most Americans, including conservative Christians (the main group opposing stem cell research) are totally fine with the government sacrificing the lives adults for the good of many (soldiers, agents, diplomats, etc). They consider it noble, even when most of the time the people that are being chosen to die didn't get a say in the matter. Yet, they have a problem with the use of embryos that could save millions more, including them. It makes no sense.

And for the record, Crawldragon, there is a vast difference between stem cell research and what Mengele did. He was a power hungry Nazi in control of Auschwitz with a sick obsession about twins that fueled most of his experimentation. He was cruel, he tortured people by removing organs without anesthesia, he condemned an entire block of women to die because of a case of head lice! How can you even compare that to stem cells? Do you think they go out and club pregnant women over the head to perform abortions on them?

There is always some kind of foul play when it comes to advancement in medical science.
From paying drug addicts in drugs back in the 50's 60's and 70's, when they were studying about drug use and addiction. To all the messed up tests they performed on people with tuberculosis. Its the name of the game, but at least with stem cell research it can be performed without causing any damage. I dont see the problem with it.

"and if humans grow baby rats just to cut open then why not baby humans?"

I can compare it to Mengele because people say stuff like this. How can you say that without damaging your conscience? Why don't I just wander into some stranger's house and kill them for body parts? Because they're human beings and that would be murder. How does the age of an embryo make it any different? How can it divide cells if it's not alive? Why if it's not human does it develop *into* a human? The logic makes no sense and I have no idea how anyone can even describe the act without thinking that it sounds horrific.

And I see that you haven't paid attention at all to the fact that it can be done with NO HARM!

Well, I would say it's not really a person until it's actually born.
I don't think of a egg as a chicken until it hatches, because it's still an egg.
How does an egg become a chicken when it is clearly an egg?
Just because something is made up of the cells that have potential to become something doesn't mean it is that thing.

Also, did you know humans contain a lot of similar cells to primates and pigs?
Thats why exeriments on harvesting pig organs for humans are being done.
So it doesn't hold true that it has to be human to become human.

So I'm scum for wanting equal rights and defending the rights of other animal. Got it.
Because it shouldn't matter if it's a human or a mole or a turtle or whatever, they are all alive.
So if someone treats other animals in such ways, cutting them up, using them for experiments, I don't think it's any less justifiable to do so to another animal.
The human animal.

I also notice that you didn't even think to address the other points, that the embryo doesn't need to be terminated to get the cells, nor does it even need to be human.
All that is being focused on is a few offhand remarks I made about how it's somehow ok to kill one animal but not another and that both should be equal.

So stop killing other animals and I'll stop saying kill people.
Because there need not be any killing involved at all for stem cell research.
Hell, I first mentioned killing to begin with only because the first post talked about it.

DarkHyren : Well there's a flaw in the chicken/egg comparison: In the case of fowl, the egg is a separate entity from the embryo inside, designed to carry it, much like the womb of a human mother. The only difference is that in the case of most birds the embryo develops outside the mother rather than inside.

Here's the trap you're falling into: you're placing labels on "human" and "person," which in the past has proven to be a dangerous thing to do. When people define what a "human" is that results in excuses for a lot of bloodshed. I redirect you to the Holocaust and yes I went there, because the Holocaust happened for a very specific reason: people place definitions on "human" which did not include "lesser-developed" individuals, so they had an excuse to remove those individuals from life to avoid "damaging" the actual humans.

The thing is, if you say something isn't human because it's "not as developed," that definition of human WILL be used later to provide an excuse to perform exterminations. I'm only following your train of thought to its logical conclusion. I mean, think about this: Stephen Hawking is "less developed." Does that make him "less human?" What about people who are born with fewer limbs? Are they "less human?" Where is the line drawn, and how is this any different? Why does something only count as a person after it's been born? Why don't we make it later like one politician suggested, so that we can kill babies that have already been born as well?

I'm not saying it's OK to kill animals. I don't think it is, but I think it's worse to kill *sentient* animals including humans, and the fact is you suggested we breed humans expressly for the purpose of killing them, something that Elara seems to be selectively ignoring so she can yell at me.

And I'm not objecting to stem cell research, I'm objecting to killing embryos for the purpose of stem cell research. I don't care if it "can" be done without harming the embryo, the fact is that people DO harm the embryo. Hitler "could" remove Jews from the reproductive flow without killing them, but he killed them anyway. Does that make holocaust somehow less evil? And by the way, we've killed more unborn babies than the entire Nazi party killed adults during World War II. Just an interesting fact.

Either way, I'm gonna bow out of this conversation, because I have a feeling no matter what I say beyond this point I'm just going to be yelled at, and my arguments would work better in a thread on abortion anyway.

*not yelling*
Crawldragon some of your comparisons dont make sense and are extreme to say the least.

Crawldragon : You took DH's term in wrong direction he was talking about undeveloped humans as in ones that are not born yet not ones with defects like stephen hawkings.

It's a lot better to kill babies then to let them grow up into Hitlers