Paintball Guns and Gear forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've got a debate coming up on stem cells. I need pro and con arguments. I know quite a bit, but for some reason I lack all motivation to research this topic any more. I have to do the cross examination and rebuttal for both pro & con sides.

Just a bit of the information that I have:

Facts
A couple undergoing IFV has four options for surplus embryos:
-Discard them
-Donate them to an infertile couple
-Donate them for research
-Preserve them at low temperatures

When does life begin? Conception? Birth?

Cons
Emerging evidence suggests that adult cells might be able to do just as much as embryonic cells. Why not research that before destroying more life?
*Need more cons*

Pros
Embryos will be destroyed anyway.
Can cure a lot of diseases, possible help thousands of people live better lives.


I mainly need counter arguments for the facts that the pro side will bring up.


Oh, and um...I guess 'discuss'. :dodgy:

-Jin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Con:

It's immoral to destroy a days-old embryo in order to save and provide relief to existing life.

Seems kind of hippy-ey to me but that's the best I could get. My friend is doing a debate on stem cells as well. I think he is against the use of them to so I can ask him for some more cons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
I'm pro stem cell research.


you have my full support.
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
More Cons
Patients suffering from Parkinson’s disease, autoimmune diseases, stroke, anemia, cancer, immunodeficiency, corneal damage, blood and liver diseases, heart attack, and diabetes—have experienced improved function following administration of therapies derived from adult or umbilical cord blood stem cells.
Black market will emerge for embryos.
Actual clinical reports of embryonic success have been few, with many obstacles arising.
May lead to abnormalities in cells and organs.
Tumor formation is common
Unstable gene expression
Obtaining a single cell type is extremely rare, and the variability among developments is large.
Why not research obtaining stem cells from living fetuses?
Umbilical cord blood is an ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells.

Evil done in the name of science is NOT justified. Do you support the Nazis and all of the “beneficial science” that was conducted during the Holocaust on the Jews?


I'm not sure whether I am pro/con stem cell research. I am pro-life, but the damage has already been done in most cases, ie: the embryos will be destroyed anyway. I don't agree, but it poses interesting questions.

-Jin
 

·
Certified Caffeine Addict
Joined
·
3,072 Posts
Jinjiro said:
Evil done in the name of science is NOT justified. Do you support the Nazis and all of the “beneficial science” that was conducted during the Holocaust on the Jews?
How exactly is fusing twins together and injecting dyes into the eyes of people solely for cosmetic reasons considered "beneficial"?
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
PizzaMiLiTiA said:
How exactly is fusing twins together and injecting dyes into the eyes of people solely for cosmetic reasons considered "beneficial"?
I'm not saying I support what the Nazis did or the way they went about it, hence the quote marks around "beneficial". However, it's undeniable that because of the horrific experiments done during the Holocaust, medical advancements were made. Despite the evil methods the Nazis used, some of their research has proven beneficial and reputable.

-Jin
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
ComradeMolyneux said:
Who gets to decide what is immoral?
So should we do whatever we feel like, because hey, it may or may not be immoral? Let's just kill anyone we want to, steal, rape women, who cares. It's not immoral to me, right?

I think there is a general consensus among the people of the world that killing a human is immoral. The real question you should be asking is "Who gets to decide what is a human life?"

-Jin
 

·
Superdeeduper Admin Type
Joined
·
17,772 Posts
One of the issues that I have given credence to is the issue of production. So ok, we define that stem cells can indeed provide benefit for certain conditions -- so where are all the stem cells going to come from to support a multi-million dollar industry that would be in place to serve the largest population possible? Will there be stem cell farms? Will there be a black market? What is the morality of making money on body products?

I am very much in favor of stem cell research, but I have yet come up with a good rebuttal for this issue. If you come up with one, let me know!
 

·
Anne Coulter's #1 Fan
Joined
·
4,291 Posts
Who decides when human life begins is another good question.

I personally think that life begins when the baby is born and surviving outside of the womb.
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
ComradeMolyneux said:
Who decides when human life begins is another good question.

I personally think that life begins when the baby is born and surviving outside of the womb.
I don't understand why life begins after exiting the womb. It's not like there's some huge final change or growth that occurs as the baby is exiting that makes it 'alive'. In my mind, it is just as much alive inside as it is outside, except there's a couple extra layers of human flesh protecting it from the world.

-Jin
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Sittin_duk said:
So, Jinjiro are you for or against it? Or for it up to a certain point, or what.
Jinjiro said:
I'm not sure whether I am pro/con stem cell research. I am pro-life, but the damage has already been done in most cases, ie: the embryos will be destroyed anyway. I don't agree, but it poses interesting questions.
I'm still undecided. I do not support destroying embryos or abortion at all. However, it's a fact that most of the embryos used in IFV will be destroyed anyway. I don't support that, but if they can be used to help people... I'm not sure. :hug:

-Jin
 

·
Anne Coulter's #1 Fan
Joined
·
4,291 Posts
Jinjiro said:
I don't understand why life begins after exiting the womb. It's not like there's some huge final change or growth that occurs as the baby is exiting that makes it 'alive'. In my mind, it is just as much alive inside as it is outside, except there's a couple extra layers of human flesh protecting it from the world.

-Jin
I figure that once it exits the womb it is no longer a parasite depending on another living being in order to live.
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
ComradeMolyneux said:
I figure that once it exits the womb it is no longer a parasite depending on another living being in order to live.
A parasite is not alive? If it depends on another living being it's not alive? So then everyone who depends on a respirator to breath is not alive. Everyone who can't feed themselves because they're paralyzed or debilitated are not alive.

Hell, by that definition, you're not really alive - ever. You ALWAYS depend on another living being in order to live. Even if you live alone, in the middle of a forest, depending on only the land, are you not still 'dead' by your definition? You depend on the animals you hunt, so therefor you aren't alive.

Your logic is flawed.

-Jin
 

·
Anne Coulter's #1 Fan
Joined
·
4,291 Posts
Jinjiro said:
A parasite is not alive? If it depends on another living being it's not alive? So then everyone who depends on a respirator to breath is not alive. Everyone who can't feed themselves because they're paralyzed or debilitated are not alive.

Hell, by that definition, you're not really alive - ever. You ALWAYS depend on another living being in order to live. Even if you live alone, in the middle of a forest, depending on only the land, are you not still 'dead' by your definition? You depend on the animals you hunt, so therefor you aren't alive.

Your logic is flawed.

-Jin
I think you're logic is flawed because a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.(According to webster dictionary)

Using this definition a fetus would qualify as a parasite but none of the other examples would. Now if you want to argue definitions, we could consult the Oxford english dictionary if you want to take it to that level.

It may seem cynical and dreary to think of fetus' the way I do, but how else does anyone plan to offer a clear definition of when a person becomes a person. Of course we could always argue whether a fetus feels pain or not and I'm sure armo wouldn't mind taking me up on the philosphical question.

Now that I'm thinking, we could be even meaner and say a person isn't a person until it develops a personality. Would that be workable as a definition of human life. It would probably be hard to quantify though =\
 

·
Woohoo
Joined
·
2,350 Posts
Jinjiro said:
I'm still undecided. I do not support destroying embryos or abortion at all. However, it's a fact that most of the embryos used in IFV will be destroyed anyway. I don't support that, but if they can be used to help people... I'm not sure. :hug:

-Jin
Ahh, I gotcha, sorry for not reading the thread...got a wee bit lazy.
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
ComradeMolyneux said:
I think you're logic is flawed because a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.(According to webster dictionary)

Using this definition a fetus would qualify as a parasite but none of the other examples would. Now if you want to argue definitions, we could consult the Oxford english dictionary if you want to take it to that level.
My other examples do indeed fit this definition of a parasite. An infant does all that you said: grows, feeds, and is sheltered on (not in) a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Does not a paralyzed person fit the definition as well? Perhaps there is little growth, but they definitely obtain nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host, and it is definitely at the host's expense.

Of course one could say we're merely arguing semantics at this point, but isn't that what the whole debate over life revolves around?

Based on what you've said, you feel that an umbilical cord is the difference between pre-life and life?

Personally, I believe life begins at conception. I'll now wait for you to flame and attack me.

-Jin
 

·
Anne Coulter's #1 Fan
Joined
·
4,291 Posts
Jinjiro said:
Personally, I believe life begins at conception. I'll now wait for you to flame and attack me.

-Jin
Nah, I respect you more than that, you're not hunts, or sitting duck ya know ;)

Semantics wise, you'd have to stretch to label a paralized person as a parasite but on to the good stuff.

I have only a limited knowledge on cord blood and since my girlfriend just showed up, it looks like I'll talk about this later so she doesn't catch me posting to a bunch of 14 year olds on a paintball forum.

Girlfriend goes home. So from what I understand, or at least what I remember from bio is that stem cells are found in the placenta and can be stored and used in case the child gets some uncurable disease like leukemia or some other disease. Is this what we're talking about?

WAIT! I thought we were talking about other stem cells. IFV stands for invitro fertilization? And the fertalized eggs that are not wanted are (one of the 4 options) is this what we're talking about, or am I still way off.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top