Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stem Cell Research - Where should atheists draw the line?

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    I havent suggested stopping it
    I haven't claimed you suggested stopping it :confused:

    You appear to be claiming stem cell treatment has never worked on animals so scientists should not be blindly presuing it without any indication it works, that this is unscientific (you appear to be suggesting there is some alterer motive here or something, I'm not sure what exactly your point is)

    What ever your point for claiming that is, it isn't true.

    It has worked on animals and in fact it has already worked on humans.
    CDfm wrote: »
    but I do think by ensuring the stem cells used are not the result of abortions would make it more "Believer" friendy.
    I agree, but I don't think the research should halt until it is more believer friendly, which is what I thought you were asking me.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Similar to dolphin friendly tuna -same idea.
    Not really
    CDfm wrote: »
    I am not saying stem cell research does not have great potential but a sure fire way to have guaranteed objections is to continue with sourcing stem cells from clinically aborted embryos. A red rag to a bull. Talk about making a present of an argument and legitimacy to the extreme Pro-life movement.
    I'm not sure appeasing these people should be a high priority. They don't appear to be the most rational of people.


  • Options
    #123
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I haven't claimed you suggested stopping it :confused:

    You appear to be claiming stem cell treatment has never worked on animals so scientists should not be blindly presuing it without any indication it works, that this is unscientific (you appear to be suggesting there is some alterer motive here or something, I'm not sure what exactly your point is)

    What ever your point for claiming that is, it isn't true.

    It has worked on animals and in fact it has already worked on humans.


    I agree, but I don't think the research should halt until it is more believer friendly, which is what I thought you were asking me.


    Not really


    I'm not sure appeasing these people should be a high priority. They don't appear to be the most rational of people.

    Hey - I think I have proven my credentials as one of the least knowledgeable on these science issues.

    What I am suggesting is that the pro and anti lobbies might have a hidden aghenda other then getting on with their jobs. The publicity,notoriety and media spotlight. Just a thought.

    Maybe reaching concensus isnt as high up the aghenda as we would like to think. Thats all. That either side can claim the moral highground is disingenious.


  • Options
    #124
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    Hey - I think I have proven my credentials as one of the least knowledgeable on these science issues.
    Would it not be a good idea then to stop posting things about science that are wrong.

    If you don't know just say you don't know and go and find out
    CDfm wrote: »
    What I am suggesting is that the pro and anti lobbies might have a hidden aghenda other then getting on with their jobs.

    I think the "pro lobby's" agenda is to a) learn about how stem cells work and b) put this knowledge to use fighting disease and helping crippled people.

    I'm not sure they are particularly hidden about this. In fact they seem quite open about it.
    CDfm wrote: »
    The publicity,notoriety and media spotlight. Just a thought.
    Can you name one doctor or scientist who works on stem cells?
    CDfm wrote: »
    Maybe reaching concensus isnt as high up the aghenda as we would like to think.
    I don't think reaching a consensus is high up on the agenda at all. If people have strong religious issues with stem cell research they should take it to their politicians.


  • Options
    #125
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Would it not be a good idea then to stop posting things about science that are wrong.

    If you don't know just say you don't know and go and find out



    I think the "pro lobby's" agenda is to a) learn about how stem cells work and b) put this knowledge to use fighting disease and helping crippled people.


    I don't think reaching a consensus is high up on the agenda at all. If people have strong religious issues with stem cell research they should take it to their politicians.


    The science is not as clear cut as some of the moral issues tend to be. To sort out the facts from the hyperbole is difficult enough.

    Then you say the science is clear cut and can be applied but preceed this with "we are still learning". So its either theoretical or its proven - it cant be both.

    You also cant say whether there is any need to source embryos from clinical abortions or whether there is a steady supply from other sources?

    Then you complete with why have dialogue anyway.

    Its no wonder I am confused Wicknight :confused:


  • Options
    #126
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    The science is not as clear cut as some of the moral issues tend to be. To sort out the facts from the hyperbole is difficult enough.

    Then you say the science is clear cut and can be applied but preceed this with "we are still learning". So its either theoretical or its proven - it cant be both.

    Oh sweet mother of Allah, how many times do we have to go over this.

    Science is always theoretical, it is never proven.

    Theories are models. Science is modeling. Models are never proven. They are models of how we believe the world works based on testing and research. We never "prove" a model, we simply refine it to make it more accurate. This is an infinite process, we are always learning, we are always refining. This never stops. Any model of anything can always be more accurate.
    CDfm wrote: »
    You also cant say whether there is any need to source embryos from clinical abortions or whether there is a steady supply from other sources?
    I#m not a cell biologists, so no I can't say. Cell biologists can, but you appear to be suggesting they have an alterer motive and can't be trusted?
    CDfm wrote: »
    Then you complete with why have dialogue anyway.
    I have no idea what that sentence means or what it is supposed to be referencing in my post. When did I "complete" with the question why have dialogue anyway.
    CDfm wrote: »
    Its no wonder I am confused Wicknight :confused:
    I assure you after having to read some of your posts I'm more confused ... :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    mickeydevine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭mickeydevine


    Read this whole thread, tis a monster. Have nothing but respect for wicknight and gothpunk. You guys have some stamina having to constantly cover the same issues over and over, answering the same questions yet never having your own answered. Some good info on stem cell research in here, alot of troll bashing too. Make sure ye eat enough to keep your energy levels up, you're gonna need it. Nice one.;)


  • Options
    #128
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Wicknight wrote: »
    ...I assure you after having to read some of your posts I'm more confused ... :pac:

    I'm not the only one who gets turned around in the utter disarray of CDfm's posts.

    Good.


  • Options
    #129
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I'm not the only one who gets turned around in the utter disarray of CDfm's posts.

    Good.

    My points are simple - why use embryos from clinical abortions if there is a source of stem cells from other sources?
    What an easy question.


    The next point is the uses of the stem cells. I am confused as in some posts its suggested that actual cures exist while in others it suggests that there are no such cure actually in existence but that the uses of stem cells is for research only.


  • Options
    #130
    Simon.d
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Simon.d


    CDfm wrote: »
    The next point is the uses of the stem cells. I am confused as in some posts its suggested that actual cures exist while in others it suggests that there are no such cure actually in existence but that the uses of stem cells is for research only.
    Having had a quick look at a few review articles on the subject, lab based experiments seem to be the primary use for Embryonic Stem Cells, i.e. simulating human tissues in the lab and learning how to manipulate and control the differentiation of stem cells into different cell types..... I don't really know if they have been used clinically all that much, if at all..

    Adult Stem Cells seem to be the focus of research looking into clinical applications, i.e. harvesting adult stem cells from bone marrow to repair tissues in the heart, or harvesting adult stem cells from the CNS to regenerate neuronal networks..

    Again embryonic stem cells are prone to immunological rejection unlike endogenous stem cells, making the latter more useful clinically..


  • Options
    #131
    mickeydevine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭mickeydevine


    CDfm wrote: »
    My points are simple - why use embryos from clinical abortions if there is a source of stem cells from other sources?
    What an easy question.


    The next point is the uses of the stem cells. I am confused as in some posts its suggested that actual cures exist while in others it suggests that there are no such cure actually in existence but that the uses of stem cells is for research only.

    If you read all the replies then you'd know the answer to both those questions, repeated more than once. Whats your agenda here?.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    mickeydevine wrote: »
    If you read all the replies then you'd know the answer to both those questions, repeated more than once. Whats your agenda here?.

    I have no agenda here.

    The purpose of the thread is to see "where would atheists draw the line" on stem cell research.

    I haven't read of any clinical application for embryonic stem cells. Most research is on adult stem cell research. So Im questioning whether or not there is a demand for embryonic stem cells harvested from clinical abortions and which Catholics (and other churches) dont want.

    Thats the only issue concerning me.

    It seems a huge debate over something there is little or no benefit from and one which has caused endless debate.Why dont the scientists just use the non-contentuous one.


  • Options
    #133
    Simon.d
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Simon.d


    CDfm wrote: »
    It seems a huge debate over something there is little or no benefit from and one which has caused endless debate.Why dont the scientists just use the non-contentuous one.

    Because the less contentious one (i.e. the adult stem cell) isn't as useful for laboratory based research (yet!)... If a researcher wants to grow the internal lining tissue of a lung in the lab, he/she can do so with an embryonic stem cell.. If a researcher wants to create a neuronal network in the lab, he/she can do so with the very same embryonic stem cell..

    However the use of embryonic stem cells in this manner may be made redundant in the future, if researchers get to grips with controlling the more stubborn and wiley adult variety...


  • Options
    #134
    mickeydevine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭mickeydevine


    Simon.d wrote: »
    Because the less contentious one (i.e. the adult stem cell) isn't as useful for laboratory based research (yet!)... If a researcher wants to grow the internal lining tissue of a lung in the lab, he/she can do so with an embryonic stem cell.. If a researcher wants to create a neuronal network in the lab, he/she can do so with the very same embryonic stem cell..

    However the use of embryonic stem cells in this manner may be made redundant in the future, if researchers get to grips with controlling the more stubborn and wiley adult variety...

    Your right of course. I read the same answers recently in more detail. Cant think where tho.........:rolleyes:. You'll be blue in the face simon.


  • Options
    #135
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    My points are simple - why use embryos from clinical abortions if there is a source of stem cells from other sources?
    What an easy question.

    Yes but it was answered. We should use stem cells from other sources if we have them and they are as good

    Some day they probably will be. But they aren't at the moment.

    You appear to be suggested both that we should stop stem cell research until they are and that they already are and that stem cell researchers have an alterer motive to continue using stem cells from embryos.

    Which is why a few people, including myself, appear some what confused.


  • Options
    #136
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Simon.d wrote: »
    Because the less contentious one (i.e. the adult stem cell) isn't as useful for laboratory based research (yet!)... If a researcher wants to grow the internal lining tissue of a lung in the lab, he/she can do so with an embryonic stem cell.. If a researcher wants to create a neuronal network in the lab, he/she can do so with the very same embryonic stem cell..

    However the use of embryonic stem cells in this manner may be made redundant in the future, if researchers get to grips with controlling the more stubborn and wiley adult variety...

    JUst for a mo -consider that its the abortion source causes the political and opposition issue that Christians- like me- have an ethical issue with.

    As GothPunk said there are other sources of embryotic stem cells other then abortions.

    While I have no ethical moral or religious objections to stems cells obtained thru sources other than abortions - many posters here clearly do but wont give reasons- is it adequete supply or is it just arrogant and callous indifference to others objections. You do know what it looks like?

    So Im wondering should atheists draw the line at sources of embryonic stem cells other then abortions as it could result in more support and less regulation for stem cell research?


  • Options
    #137
    Simon.d
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Simon.d


    CDfm wrote: »
    JUst for a mo -consider that its the abortion source causes the political and opposition issue that Christians- like me- have an ethical issue with.

    As GothPunk said there are other sources of embryotic stem cells other then abortions.

    While I have no ethical moral or religious objections to stems cells obtained thru sources other than abortions - many posters here clearly do but wont give reasons- is it adequete supply or is it just arrogant and callous indifference to others objections. You do know what it looks like?

    So Im wondering should atheists draw the line at sources of embryonic stem cells other then abortions as it could result in more support and less regulation for stem cell research?

    I'm personally against abortions myself (outside of rape & risk of significant harm to the mother) as I'm of the opinion that people should take responsibility for their actions..

    But at same time I think aborted foetus's are probably the least contentious source of embryonic stem cells (i.e. it's akin to harvesting organs from a dead body which most don't seem to have a problem with) though I'm unsure how useful such cells are, having passed the pluripotent blastocyst stage.


  • Options
    #138
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Simon.d wrote: »
    I'm personally against abortions myself (outside of rape & risk of significant harm to the mother) as I'm of the opinion that people should take responsibility for their actions..

    But at same time I think aborted foetus's are probably the least contentious source of embryonic stem cells (i.e. it's akin to harvesting organs from a dead body which most don't seem to have a problem with) though I'm unsure how useful such cells are, having passed the pluripotent blastocyst stage.

    Thanks Simon - but you know where I am coming from is how to use the science and technology without giving the wackos and extremists on either side the opportunity to strut their stuff.

    I dont want to be in an abortion debate but I would like to know more then I read in the papers or stuff thats regurgitated from interest groups.Its easier to ask these questions on A & A.

    I wonder " how useful such cells are, having passed the pluripotent blastocyst stage" or what are is the viability of alternative sources?


  • Options
    #139
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »

    What did I propose? :confused:


    Darwin Birthday Party around at Wicky's House

    http://www.sciencegallery.ie/node/700

    Its a real Atheist Xmas thang.


  • Options
    #140
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Just saw this article today.

    'Blind' girl has her first driving lesson


  • Options
    #141
    aguaclara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭aguaclara


    this is an interesting topic! i definitely think this is the kind of thing that transcends religion - ethical concerns don't disappear just because you don't believe in the supernatural.

    as other posters have pointed out, i think it does come back to the same fundamental as abortion - how much importance you place on an embryo vis-a-vis how much importance you place on the potential benefit to the people involved.

    personally, having seen the misery caused by MS and other degenerative illnesses, i value the potential benefits to living people over the right to life of a collection of cells which aren't sentient (despite what some would have you believe).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Im with aguaclara here. Im Catholic and no doubt I would find it v v hard to resist a stem cell cure if it was my child needed it and I have kids. It gives and lead us not into temptation a different slant.

    Thats the Catholic line - that stem cells sourced from abortions is like organ harvesting and not like transplants or blood transfusions.

    Where would I stand if my child daughter was terminally ill and needed a kidney and I could buy a match. Would I, probably,though, I would hope I wouldn't.

    I could cross lots of lines and thats why we need ethical laws and controls.


  • Options
    #143
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Early days I'm sure... but promising:

    Breakthrough: stem cells without embryos
    The research raises the prospect for the first time of developing wide-ranging 'spare part' stem cell treatments without having to destroy human embryos.


  • Options
    #144
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Dades wrote: »
    Early days I'm sure... but promising:

    Breakthrough: stem cells without embryos

    This only deals with skin cells. Bone marrow and umbilical blood stem cells that are not embryo or fetal sourced - ie they come from grown adults or children -have been used successfully in treatment for some time already.

    While it is impossible to believe all you read on Wikipedia this article has professional citations that can be researched.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#cite_note-31

    Bottom line - adult stem cells have already delivered. Why pursue embryonic stem cells?


Advertisement