Of course, that's the gray area, isn't it? And that's my point. Religious people deal with absolutes. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not lie. Etc. The real world doesn't fit with theological absolutes. The real world needs compromise. Use stem cells to save REAL human lives. Humans that we can touch and feel. Save your religious debates for churchs.
So....do you also support unhindered animal research? No guidelines? No ethical review boards? What if that research could yield a cure. Surely the well being of a pig, or a monkey or a mouse shouldn't stand in the way of research. Afterall..the real world needs real cures. The real world needs compromise. I expect no one will answer your question, because the question is.....how to put this politely......inflamitory. Saying you would accept treatment that was derived from research you opposed is not hypocritical. And your question tries to spin it that way. Add in a sprinkling of religious stereotyping and bashing, and I can see why no ones clamoring to discuss it. Are the religious guys the only ones with concerns about stem cell reasearch? (I know they have GWB's ear, but other nations have struggled with this stuff too). Med research issues are always complex. Especially as you come 'closer' to experimenting with humans.
Of course I want ethical review boards and guidelines. But isn't that the point? Compromise on the position. Animal research is needed to save lives. Yet animal cruelty is inhumane. Compromise by creating a set of standards for animal research has been done. You didn't refute anything at this point. What is inflammatory is the fact that millions will die from some people's pig-headedness. The question I ask is a real life situation that WILL occur. If you don't think accepting stem-cell research is being a hypocrite, then you can reply that you are a pro-lifer who would use the research to save his child's life. I've never precluded that possibility. You can judge yourself. IF I'm not mistaken, this is a Debate & Discussion thread, is it not? No one is discussing it is because they don't have a good argument to use. They've been told by the church what to do. They just follow the church and their religion. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't have an easy answer. That's why it's so hard to justify these situations. Of course the issue is complex. It requires an ethical committee to oversee the stem cell research and to create guidelines to prevent ethical mishaps. But this isn't about ethics, this is about religion and real life. This is how religion intrudes upon society. Great Britain is taking the correct steps in promoting stem cell research while having a powerful ethics committee overseeing all research. Ensuring that the research is carried out appropriately and ethically.
Uh, yeah, religious people don't have REAL PROBLEMS. Just because you have religious beliefs doesn't mean you stop making decisions. It doesn't mean you no longer have to deal with problems or face difficult choices. It doesn't mean you're just "content" in some sort of trance of ignorance, as you seem to believe. You've illustrated the fact that people must weigh their beliefs while making decisions every day. If you truly believe that stem cell research results in the killing of human beings, then in your little scenario the choice is between a crippled child and a dead one. That's one ****ing agonizing decision, especially if your mind isn't made up. I happen to hold religious beliefs AND support stem cell research. I simply don't consider a clump of cells to be human life, and I'll be happy to reap any medical reward research on stem cells yields, especially a baldness cure! I happen to think that people against stem cell research should do a little more research themselves, but you can't fault anyone for being wary about human and genetic experimentation. That road can easily lead into Mengele territory. Believe it or not, some "religious people" aren't tards. A couple of us even have a few REAL PROBLEMS out here in the REAL WORLD that can't be solved easily. Life is rough for all people, religious or otherwise; believe me, I wish I lived in some kind of fantasy land without REAL PROBLEMS. Religion can guide our feelings when making decisions, but it doesn't make hard choices more simple. Again, I support stem cell research but I can at least understand and accept where those who disagree with me are coming from. I don't pretend to have it all figured out; you seem to fault those who do. Make sure you don't fall into the same trap yourself.
good post. I actually do believe there are many good Christians out there despite my repeated Christian bashings. In fact, I didn't even want to bring up the whole religion debate. I've just been playing devil's advocate and using an extremists view to see the response. Unfortunately, no one is willing or able to post his view in an intelligent, thoughtful way. I just wanted to see the point of view of a pro-lifer, and his logic as he makes the difficult choice. But perhaps no one wants to think about it, eh?
Perhaps not all Conservatives are certain what their decision would be until they HAVE to make it. I agree that perhaps it would be wise not to outlaw things until you're SURE where you'd stand in such an unfortunate circumstance. Others would say we need to nip this sort of research in the bud before we have a race of genetically modified sharkmen running things. Still others no doubt feel that when it comes to the question of whether or not this research is killin' babies, it's better to be safe than sorry and simply not proceed. Mainly, though, intelligent political debate is simply a thing of the past. Honest discussion requires a great deal of vulnerability, an admission that your point of view might be wrong. I'm not sure it that admission is clear on your part in starting this thread, and conservatives by definition aren't very into that sort of vulnerability, especially on the Internets. Well, ****, I don't want to think about it, and I already know where I stand. I don't think most folks consider the decision whether or not to dissect human material, possibly making Baby Jesus cry in the process, in order to allow my little darling to play softball a pleasant topic. For those who believe that stem cells are essentially a killed human being, the decision you profer in your original post is a no-win situation and I consider it likely that they are avoiding being goaded by your challenge. I suggest that we both (and all of us) merely hope not for some response in this thread, but that programs like the one you watched will inspire people to better inform themselves, religious or no, on the implications of stem cell research. No one in the situation you described need explain or justify their decision to us, they must only make the decision as best they are able. Sooner would be better than later for that decision, I suppose, but stem cell research can't be stopped either way, so the only thing Americans truly stand to lose is money.
My father who was not a church-going man or even spiritual in any way that he made public (even to his family) declined to have surgery using stem cells that may have helped to alleviate his Parkinson's disease which took his life in 2001.
Really sorry to hear about your father Giddy. I almost lost my dad about 7 years ago but luckily he recovered and is still alive. Was the treatment for your dad using embryonic stem cells? To my knowledge there aren't any treatments yet using embryonic stem cells beyond the animal testing stages.
Goaded by my challenge? I just want to see how they would react. If you look at my original post, I just ask them what they would do. There's nothing inflammatory in my original post unless you are aversed to thinking. The research has been done. For me the choice is easy. But for them it's probably hard. Asking tough questions help people not only understand each other, but understand themselves. In this case, it'd help me understand them. But if they don't wish to establish dialogue, it's no wonder the US is as polarized as it is.
Honestly, I can't remember for sure... but my fuzzy recollection is that he had some moral objection to the surgery rather than just an unwillingness to have the surgery.
Unless it was an experimental treatment, I think he is referring to an implantable electronic stimulating device (which is pretty interesting technology). There are no known cures using embryonic stem cells at this time (that I can think of), however, adult (& child) stem cells have been used for years to treat certain types of leukemia. MartianMan, I think many peoples concerns lie with the harvesting procedure of embryonic stem cells and not so much with the research itself. Adults contain stem cells, why can't we harvest these? If laws are enacted that protect the fetal life, wouldn't that allow for more research to develop techniques to differentiate adult stem cells?
No, it did not involve the use of any electronic devices; it involved the use of cells (can't be certain of embryonic or not). This would have been in 1999, 2000, or 2001. As I recall, there was a dramatic story on 60 minutes about a man with Parkinson's who had had this surgery and got remarkable results. Sadly, now my mother-in-law has Parkinsons....
Maybe it was a new experimental treatment then? There are a couple articles about stem cells and adult retinal cells being implanted to help with symptoms (both interesting techniques). Here is a new scientist article about those: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2182 Sorry to hear about your mother-in-law, hopefully she will do well with treatment.
There's a lot of research going on using adult and umbilacal chord blood stem cells but they are limited. Those kind of stem cells don't have the same ability to differentiate into an type of cell. So marrow stem cells can be coaxed into differentiating into all sorts of blood cells they can't become neurons. Embryonic stem cells are the only stem cells that can be differentiated into any cell type. Research on adult and embryonic stem cells isn't in conflict but is complementary.
Fortunately, this is a fundamentally wrong belief that has been perpetuated by the media. Technically, every cell with a complete DNA genome (i.e. all cells but gametes and RBCs) can be coaxed into differentiation of different elements. In fact, research with fat from liposuctions (see plastic surgery is good!) has shown to have "stem" cells that can be differentiated into bone, cartilage, etc... My point is that more research is needed in developing techniques to differentiate adult stem cells. These adult stem cells don't carry the stigma of fetal stem cells and will provide just as many if not more leeway for the advancement of medicine (I think taylor-made organ transplantation from harvested stem cells from your own body is a novel and exciting idea). As an aside, check out this abstract from an upcoming paper on neural repair strategies. Its a review of the literature showing that adult stem cells may in the future be useful for treating spinal cord injuries like MartianMan's question. Abstract
Most research that I've seen says that's not the case. While each nucleated cell contains the whole genome the problem is figuring out how to activate that genome. The relationship between the protiens in the cytoplasm and the nuclear material isn't very well understood. So therapeutic cloning works because only because an egg cell is imbued with the DNA from another organism. So there's something else with in the egg cell and not just the nucleus that gives its the power to divide and eventually differentiate into every cell. I agree that's these mechanism aren't well known so its very possible a way could be found to make any cell differentiate into another kind of cell but were a ways from that. Interesting article but there it illustrates my point since they're identifying neural stem cells which can be coaxed to form new neurons. Its not the same thing as taking a blood stem cell and making it a neuron or a liver cell. Anyway in the case of a genetic defect like cystic fibrosis if you could identify adult stem cells that correspond to the functional cells using those adult cells might not work since they would contain the same genetic flaw. If you could engineer new cells from embryonic stem cells you could replace those defective cells with unflawed cells. All of this research shows me its too early to rule anything out why research on both embryonic and adult stem cells should proceed.
I totally agree, coaxing the cell to differentiate is the difficult part with adult stem cells as well as embryonic cells. With more research, I think it will be possible and should provide for some interesting therapuetic options. Genetic defects like cystic fibrosis are interesting disorders because these are single base mutations that have been identified (in most cases). One new therapy for CF involves a retrovirus administered through an inhaler. The virus deposits its genome which contains a working copy of the mutated gene. Voila! you have a working copy in the cells with the mutated gene. There are of course lots of problems with this modality, but this type of genetic therapy (along with stem cells) may be the wave of the future for medicine.
