Apparently they’re accepting donors strictly for the purpose of stem cell research… in the past the only stem cell research was done on “extra” embryos that were leftover from in-vitro fertilization.
Now I personally see no problem with this. I dont see the difference between a leftover embryo and an embryo that was never meant for breeding purposes in the first place.
I also think that stem cell research is a wonderful thing, so maybe I’m a bit biased.
But apparently this new tactic is coming under alot of heat from people who think its immoral.
Leftover fertilized eggs aren’t good for anything but the trashcan once the owners decide they are done with them. Since the embryo’s destruction is imminent anyway using them for some research (promising research at that) doesn’t seem too bad.
On the other hand you have people creating an embryo for the express purpose of being used in a lab experiment.
I know its subtle but I guess people are having pictures of fetus farms springing to mind. Imagine a factory filled with exowombs populated by human embryos/fetuses there for the express purpose of being harvested like so many bananas.
Personally I support further research into stem cells and thier uses but I do find the idea of manufacturing human embryos for harvesting vaguely creepy. Still, I’ll allow that this might be a knee-jerk reaction as well.
If I’m not mistaken, the cells must be harvested before they have begun to differentiate. The prober term at this stabge, IIRC, is not “fetus”, or even “embryo”, but “blastocyst” or something similar. It’s one thing to argue that an 8 month fetus is a human being, but saying the same for a ball of identical cells is just plain silly IMO. It has the potential to become human, but there are actual humans who need replacement organs and tissues, and I think it’s reasonable to say that the rights of an actual human override those of something that if undisturbed might one day become human.
[Devil’s Advocate Hat On]
Some religions consider life to begin at the moment of conception. Calling it an undifferentiated ball of cells is merely semantics to them. In their view that ball of cells has a soul.
[/Devil’s Advocate Hat Off]
On the whole RoboDude I agree with you. Still, TexasSpur’s slippery slope can’t be ignored.
Once you start down this path where do you stop? Where are the lines drawn? Who decides where those lines are drawn?
I’m not opposed to this stuff out-of-hand but I think these issues and their implications need to be understood better before walking down that road.
I understand (don’t agree with, but understand) the position of those folks who believe that life begins at conception. In threads about child support and should the male who thought the partner couldn’t get pregnant be responsable for c/s, I pointed out that for a baby to emerge there needed to be An egg. A sperm. and a womb.
And I hope that those folks will begin to think that would apply here. these aren’t egg/sperm combos that were implanted in a womb, but are eggs harvested plus sperm harvested. No womb, no baby. those two cells combined in a petrie dish are not going to grow into a human. They are human cells, yes, but so are fingernails, hair clippings etc. In order to complete the human, they need to be implanted into a human womb, and w/o that, they should not be considered more ‘revered’, worthy of protection than an appendix that’s been removed. I hope that all would agree to attempt to reduce human suffering (those who are already here) is a goal worthy of note.
Consider this: Should the clinic where these petrie dishes catch on fire, would you want/require a firefighter to risk their life to run in and retrieve them? We certainly encourage the firefighter to do that to rescue the baby, old person etc. Would you? and if not, then you obviously see some level of difference. And if so, best of luck facing the now partially orphaned children of the firefighter.
</minor hijack>
Can someone clear this up for me? I thought at one point I heard that the umblical blood from a just born child contains stem cells (or ones almost identical) and they were being used research- if true would make it unnecessary(not to mention more expensive than the alternative) to experiment with embryos. Or am I thinking of something else entirely?
<minor hijack>
I’m curious though, from what I learned in my A&P class, a embryo at the “ball of cells stage” (before 64 cells) can be split up as many times as one wants, and each bit of cells, much like a starfish, can regenerate into a whole new person. This was the explaination for identical twins and other identical multiples. Were this true, would it be immoral to take say, half a dozen of the cells out, and leave the rest to become the baby? The six cells would only have the * potential* of being the baby’s twin ** if ** they let it continue to develop, which they wouldn’t.
Yes, the umbilical cord contains stem cells. However, the number of umbilical cords produced vs. the number of stem cells for research is out of whack. Scientists need a way to produce those cells on demand as needed for research and eventually for use as the research bears out. There simply aren’t enough umbilical cords or material per cord to satisfy these experiments.
Why is everyone so focused on the stem cells themselves and not the suffering that they can probably stop? Do you think that if it can be done that we can stop it by outlawing it in this country? If I get one of those diseases and they have come up with a cure using stem cells in Albania, where do you think my plane ticket will be for?
How long will it take for someone to say it isn’t fair to the poor people that they can’t get the same treatment that the rich can get? And what will happen when a protester gets the disease? What will s/he do? Duh?
Because the ends don’t necessarily justify the means.
We could also cure a lot of suffering by kidnapping blacks and Hispanics to use as human guinea pigs. With their unwilling help, we could probably make tremendous advances in medical science. Would that make it right?
We could also cut down on poverty and disease by burning down hundreds of Third World villages. Should we though, simply because some good can be accomplished as a result?
Nobody denies that stem cell research holds great promise in alleviating human suffering. That doesn’t mean that we should be harvesting them from human fetuses, though. The good they can accomplish is only one side of this equation.
I don’t think there’s that much chance of the slippery slope becoming an issue. It may be possible to dissect 8 month fetuses for stem cells, but if it’s possible (and AFAIK preferable) to harvest them from when there’s nothing but stem cells, why would anyone want to?
We are talking about undiffentiated cells being used to cure fully developed humans.
I have never read of anyone suggesting the above (except of course, you).
Like the statement above this does not even make sense. The fact that you would use such an example makes me wonder.
Finally, we agree on something
If you don’t know the difference here, please look it up. If you know the difference then you are using fetus in order to be dramatic.
So give the other side without belittling this side. And also answer the other questions I asked. Just because the U.S. bans it how are we going to keep it from happening in other parts of the world? And what would you do if you had one of the diseases and there was a cure, but…?
You miss the point. You asked why people aren’t focusing on the good that fetal stem cell research can accomplish. They aren’t focusing on it because that issue is not central to the moral conflict at hand.
Rather, the central issue is whether fetal stem cell harvesting involves (or would encourage) the ending of a human life. The possible benefits of fetal stem cell research are secondary and ultimately irrelevant. If harvesting these cells involves (or would encourage) ending innocent lives, then these possible benefits would not justify such an act. Conversely, if no such lives are sacrifices, then the appeal to these benefits is simply not necessary.
In short, no amount of benefit is sufficient to justify an act that’s fundamentally immoral – and conversely, no appeal to benefit is necessary to justify a morally neutral act.
Please not that I have made no comment regarding whether stem cell harvesting would require taking a human life. I am merely addressing the question of why this discussion has not centered around the benefits that you emphasize.
Give me a break. It should be immediately obvious that I am NOT suggesting such an option. Rather, I am using this example to show that demonstrating a positve social outcome does not justify an action, especially where human lives are concerned.
BTW, you are correct in pointing out that I was using the word “fetus” carelessly. Nevertheless, the point remains – the central issue is not the potential for medical cures. Rather, the central issues are the humanity of the embryo, blastocyst, conceptus or whatnot, and whether the killing of such would be encouraged.
JThunder, funny how you didn’t respond to the comments about your erroneus use of the word “fetus” in your first post (upon preview I see that you have addressed this). I would bet that most “pro-lifers” wouldn’t classify fertilized embryos that are days old as “fetuses.”
There is clearly a difference between a fetus and 5-day-old embryos. Stop with the rhetoric.
Your analogy was a red herring. Just as there is a difference between fetuses and these embryos there is even more of a difference between fully formed human beings with lives and days-old embryos. It is ridiculous to compare the two.
As far as I know, Bush has put a ban on fetal stem cell research when the tissue is from aborted fetuses. Now the debate is whether there should be federal funding given for research using embryos that will otherwise be thrown away. These embryos are not going to be enjoying any life, they will be discarded. So, as I understand it, instead of using them for research they will just be thrown away.
Here’s why I think the slippery slope argument is invalid.
On one side, you have the possibility that this will lead to the deaths of possible human beings (i.e embryos, and fetuses as we “slide down the slope”)
On one side, you have the people who can be treated by the results of the stem research.
I can see that if this were about people destroying embryos for their convenience, or whatever, then the argument might apply. But this is research that can save lives.
You cannot sacrifice people today, because it might lead to the sacrifice of potential people someday.
I have difficulty believing this could be true. If say a dozen or two hospitals made it standard procedure to collect and store umblical blood in a similar fashion to donated blood(or however would be more appropriate,) after every birth, and the labs nearest to said hospitals arranged for the blood to get to the labs on a daily basis, I think there would be far more stem cells at their disposal because no matter how many cells each cord contained, there are lots of babies born daily, and the cells are already formed, so they wouldn’t have to wait for an embryo to develop to a useful stage. Of course, there would have to be waivers signed by the parents before they used the blood, but I doubt that a significant number would mind that what would otherwise be medical waste is used to attempt to better others’ lives. Even if the hospitals charged a small fee for providing them the blood, it would still be less expensive that extracting eggs from a woman and they creating a embryo in vitro.
Only because I was addressing the firt part of kniz’s objections. His comments about my careless use of the word “fetus” didn’t come until later.
Why are you beating this dead horse? I openly and explicitly stated that my verbiage was careless. You are berating me to “stop with the rhetoric,” when I have already openly acknowledged my error.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, your comment merely demonstrates my point – the real issue is the humanity of the embryo, rather than the potential benefits of stem cell research.
If embryonic stem cell research is murder, then it is wrong even if it can potentially cure disease. To cry out “But we can help use it to help people!” is the real moral red herring. Such potential benefits, promising as they may be, would not justify murder.
If you want to argue that harvesting embryos is not murder, that’s one thing. That is not the issue I’m addressing right now. Rather, I’m addressing the question of why people haven’t been focusing on the wonderful benefits of stem cell research (benefits which have yet to be realized).
Perhaps, but the same argument can be used to argue the other way. As you yourself said, “this is research that can save lives” (emphasis mine). In other words, it might save lives, but then again, it might not. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Moreover, most opponents of stem cell research – including those within the medical community – are convinced that the embryos are actual human beings, rather than “possible human beings” (to use your own phrase). If so, then it is hardly reasonable to sacrifice actual human beings because it might lead to medical cures someday.
The moral ground gets murkier when it comes to embryos that would otherwise be thrown away. One could argue that the embryo would die anyway, but can we ignore the possibility that such research would encourage the creation of more embryos to be destroyed – and should we be creating them at all?
From what I’ve read there isn’t any doubt that it can save lives. It will not save lives immediately, because more research needs to be done. They do believe that they are closer to finding the answers than they thought they were just a short time ago.
There are opponents to everything and so if we relied on and followed their line of reasoning, we would never do anything new. By the way, I don’t believe that stem cells are actual human beings. Are you one of those opponents? And you used the term most opponents so not all of them believe that stem cells are actual humans, right?
Why are you getting your undies in a wad about stem cell research and not in vitro? The purpose of in vitro is to create a human being. Therefore, theoretically each and every one of those stem cells has the chance of becoming a human being. It is only the fate of the draw that prevents a particular cell from becoming a human being. These cells had the potential and yet became excess baggage.
In the case at hand the intent is not to create a human being. The cell is created in a dish and none will be used to impregnate a woman. None are rejected simply because of fate. The man has plenty of spare sperm and the woman is not using all of her eggs. Both will produce more, sounds pretty logical to me.
By the way, here’s something from today’s news:
(emphasis mine).
And also back to my questions. What are you going to do when your SO gets Alzheimers? Will I get my treatment for Parkinsons in Canada or Mexico?