Stem cell research, et cetera

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526483]

I'm not sure how the majority of /sci/ feels about this subject, since 4chan has a tendency to surprise me when it comes to politically sensitive things (e.g., when 99% of daytime summer /new/ is hardcore conservative manchildren). But it shouldn't be a problem, since I'm not trying to start a debate. I just have a question.

Could you guys explain the stem cell controversy to me? I'm not a moron, and I understand how Christians and other groups feel about abortion and anything else related to fetuses, but I don't understand the specific reasons for opposing research involving stem cells, embryonic or otherwise.

Obviously, scientists are not killing embryos to harvest their stem cells. As I understand it, they are using stem cells from embryos which are already, for whatever reason, deceased. People seem to oppose this practice, claiming that embryos should be considered human beings, but even assuming they are human beings, using their stem cells for medicinal purposes is no different from using a deceased adult's organs. The only problem here is that the embryo could not give consent, but that's not something that I hear anyone complaining about.

TL;DR: What's the big deal with embryonic stem cell research?

Also, has there ever been any success using adult stem cells? And is there anyone out there who opposes their use as well?

[Anonymous No.1526491]

>>1526483
sensationalism and reporting errors in the press and by crazy people

[Anonymous No.1526488]

most scientists support stem cells.

[Anonymous No.1526501]

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526508]

>>1526491

Somehow I doubt that bad information is the source of all this controversy. There seem to be plenty of semi-educated people who have the facts and are still opposed to the research. But whenever I see them on TV, they're pretty vague, and their entire argument consists of "BUT LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION."

Maybe this argument would make sense to someone who is well-versed in the history of stem-cell controversy, but I must be missing a few tacit points here:

1) Embryos are humans.
2) ????
3) Stem cells from deceased embryos should never be touched.

You guys can see where I stand on the issue, so I don't expect anyone to change my mind. I'm just not sure what's going through the minds of others.

[CaptObvious No.1526521]

Think of embryonic stems cells as organ donation....

[Anonymous No.1526524]

if a fertilized egg is a person then every woman who had a period with an egg in it is guilty of man slaughter.

shit tier logic.

[Anonymous No.1526552]

I actually did a project on this in college.

Embryonic stem cells can only be non-controversially removed through a cut umbylical cord. The current method involves using aborted fetus's or cloning. Both the words, "Cloning" and "Aborted" make people uncomfortable to the moral aspects. Scientists are completely logical and understanding about this and have started to develop ways to take Adult Stem cells. Cells derived from special depositories in the body which are actually more compatable as organ donation and treatments. However, the possiblity(never going to happen) of "MASSIVE FETUS FARMING" weighs on goverment sponsors and polititians minds.

tl;dr People who oppose stem cells oppose them for religous or "moral" reasons.

[Anonymous No.1526554]

I remember reading a while ago that there is a new way to turn adipose cells into stem cells. I told this to a couple of people I know, who were against stem cell research, and they still told me it was wrong. I don't understand them and their lack of logic.

[Anonymous No.1526563]

OP I admire your naive faith in the intelligence of a majority of modern society

[Anonymous No.1526569]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Gelsinger
But gene therapy=/=stem cell therapy

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526571]

>>1526524

Isn't an egg always lost during a woman's period? And isn't it usually not fertilized? Whatever. I get your point.

I'm not sure how I feel about abortion in general, and I'm not interested in arguing about it, but I will say that I can understand where the "life-starts-at-conception" argument is coming from. It just arises out of a need for clear-cut rules, just like the "life-starts-at-birth" argument. Few people would argue that a sperm inside of an egg is a human being, but fewer people would argue that a fully-developed fetus, hours before birth, is not. Basically, when a human is conceived, you have NO LIFE gradually turning into LIFE.

At what point do you draw the line? There is no magical point at which a fetus suddenly develops the ability to think or feel, and if there is, it certainly does not happen at conception, nor does it happen at birth. But if you're in need of non-ambiguous distinctions, conception and birth are the two most convenient places to draw a line. People opposed to abortion, for whatever reason, say that human life begins the second that sperm touches the egg, regardless of how ridiculous it might sound.

Anyway, this is getting kind of off-topic. I should have expected a big debate about abortion, but it's not really what I was going for. So here's a new question:

Even if you assume that abortion is wrong, how does this translate to stem cells research being immoral? You might as well make the best of a bad situation, right?

[Anonymous No.1526583]

>>1526571

>have NO LIFE gradually turning into LIFE.

Can a dead sperm fertilize and egg? No.
Can a dead egg be fertilized by a sperm? No.

It takes a live egg and live sperm.

Life was not created, it was continued.

[CaptObvious No.1526585]

For an radical feminist POV, all willful/intentional destruction of pre-birth zygote/embryo/fetus should be classified as manslaughter; the mother retains the legal right to commit intentional manslaughter of her own zygote/embryo/fetus; everyone else is prosecuted.

[Anonymous No.1526586]

>>1526571
Religous individuals oppose ANYTHING to do with abortion. In their eyes, its allowing murder to be done, and then worrying about the dead ones organs. Who are "TO YOUNG TO MAKE A DECSION." They also oppose "cloning" because it is against God and believe we are "playing God". Its bad logic. But no one said religon was logical.

[Anonymous No.1526593]

>>1526552
>Embryonic stem cells can only be non-controversially removed through a cut umbylical cord.

Steal umbylical cords, retrieve stem cells. win-win for everyone!

...so why isn't the debate over(not on abortion, but embryonic stem cell research)?

[Anonymous No.1526616]

Does anyone else completely agree with pro-choice ideas but still believe abortions should be a bit more difficult to carry out?

I knew a girl in college who got pregnant with a drunk one-night stand and aborted a week later with little to no trouble. While i understand that its really just cells clumping together at that time, youre killing the "possibility" of a human being. Im sure someone here knows someone who was born with a mother in her teenage years. She made a choice to bring that person into the world. And i would admire her for that. I dont think we should completely destroy abortions, (theyll still happen, more dangerously), but maybe women should have to talk to a psychiatrist for a week or so. Show them that theyre more possibilities than just abortion.

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526611]

>>1526552
> Embryonic stem cells can only be non-controversially removed through a cut umbylical cord. The current method involves using aborted fetus's or cloning. Both the words, "Cloning" and "Aborted" make people uncomfortable to the moral aspects.

Thanks for the helpful reply.

I can understand why people would cringe at the words "abortion" and "cloning." The moral issues surrounding abortion are obvious, and cloning is seen as a can of worms that, once opened, will cause all sorts of problems, albeit problems that Hollywood probably invented.

But if scientists can get these stem cells from umbilical cords, why not do it? You seem to be implying that they voluntarily opt for aborted fetuses instead. Are there scientists who are working successfully with umbilical cord stem cells? That sounds like a pretty obvious solution to the controversy, if there are.

>>1526554

They probably didn't understand what adipose cells are. I know I don't, which is why I'm looking it up right after I finish typing this post. Also, they probably just heard from their religious community that "stem cell research" is evil, and they categorize all stem cell research as morally wrong, regardless of the details.

I think I might be answering my original question here...

>>1526563

I can't help but assume that most people can be reasonable and logical once they're given the correct information. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.1526619]

>>1526586
Christian here,

>They also oppose "cloning" because it is against God and believe we are "playing God"

I used to think this when I was 9, but then my private school teacher said attempting to terraform Mars would be "Playing God" and thus the wrong thing to do.

Changed my perspective on a lot of things. Now I'd consider it something more along the lines of harnessing the intellectual prowess God gave man, which would be foolish to not use.

[Anonymous No.1526621]

>>1526616

>youre killing the "possibility" of a human being.

You do the same thing when you jack off. Your point?

[Anonymous No.1526626]

OP, the concern isn't with the research itself, or researching on embryos who naturally were conceived and died; it's with the potential for harvesting embryos for the purpose of research.

[Anonymous No.1526639]

>>1526616

>She made a choice to bring that person into the world

Unless their parents force them to keep the baby. Which will happen 99% of the time if your parents are anti-abortionists.

Admit it or not, teenagers rarely make their own choices about pregnancy. Usually they do whatever their parents, priests, etc suggests.

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526641]

>>1526583
> Life was not created, it was continued.

You're right. But that's not exactly what I meant... I guess my post wasn't very clearly written. I realize that the sperm and egg cells are alive, but they aren't living creatures. Instead of asking when life begins, I really meant to ask when the cells become a human. Is a human created when the sperm hits the egg? Definitely not. Is a human created when it comes out of the mother? No, it was a human before that. So, still, the question remains: Where do you draw the line? It's really a hypothetical question, because there is no line. It's a gradual process, and any attempt to divide the development of a fetus into a dichotomy of "not yet human" and "already human" is automatically flawed.

[Anonymous No.1526643]

>>1526619
Theres not a possibility of a person. Random sperm cells not attached to anything is biologically the same as spitting.

[Anonymous No.1526647]

>>1526616
You're not killing the "possibility of a human being". At conception you have a new human being, biologically speaking, leaving any religious or philosophical views aside. A zygote is a new human organism with a new human genome. It is technically a living human organism; it's not a cell belonging to another organism, like a sperm cell.

[Anonymous No.1526652]

>>1526552
>The current method involves using aborted fetus's or cloning
No it doesn't. It uses left over blastocysts from in vitro fertilization clinics.

[Anonymous No.1526653]

>>1526639
Which is a perfect logical thing to do for those people. Give them an authority figure who gives them ALL the options. Including abortion.

[Anonymous No.1526654]

I'm slow with the times.
Are we allowing stem cell research?
it looks like they allow abortions, and they'd go hand in hand.

[Anonymous No.1526657]

>>1526643

Nope. Sperm contains active DNA, the stuff of life.

Spit contains more bacteria than human cells.

[Anonymous No.1526661]

>>1526641
after the sperm and egg meet, when the two half-sets of DNA combine into a new human genome, and the cell is ready to start dividing and differentiating to form the body plan defined in that genome, you have a new human organism.

[Anonymous No.1526669]

>>1526647

Go get Cambell's biology book for intro level biology. In the first chapter life is defined, by listing criteria.

A fetus (let alone a newly formed zygote) does not meet the criteria.

[Anonymous No.1526668]

>>1526652
I wrote my research paper about 3 or 4 years ago. Things updated? In-vitro fertilization still sounds like cloning to me. Even if its just cloning small cells. "cloning"="bad" in a very conservative religous persons mind. (No offense to religous people and such.)

[Anonymous No.1526678]

What I don't get about abortion is that there are millions out there trying to adopt children.

Just logically speaking, if there is a demand for the child, why not make everyone happy with the parents not having to worry about it and the child getting a stable life.

[Anonymous No.1526684]

>>1526657
My blood contains active DNA. The stuff of life. Whats your point?

[Anonymous No.1526687]

>>1526669
That is absurd. Maybe you should reread the book. A living fetus is alive. A dead fetus is dead. The do things like checking for the fetal heartbeat to see if it is alive or dead.

[Anonymous No.1526690]

>>1526668
How do you see In-vitro fertilization as cloning?

[Anonymous No.1526691]

>>1526678

Giving birth costs thousands of dollars, takes months to finalize, is painful, and is bureaucratic.

An abortion costs a couple hundred dollars and is done in two hours.

[Anonymous No.1526692]

>>1526678
You and >>1526616 me would get along great.

[Anonymous No.1526693]

>>1526678

I can understand that argument. Adoption is a viable alternative, but I think some people just don't want to physically have the baby, because of the pain, and they might be worried they'll become emotionally attached to the baby and want to keep it, when that isn't a viable option.

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526694]

>>1526626
> OP, the concern isn't with the research itself, or researching on embryos who naturally were conceived and died; it's with the potential for harvesting embryos for the purpose of research.

If that's really what they're afraid of, then I guess things make a bit more sense.

But I don't think that would ever happen. If they ever perfect the use of stem cells, they'll probably also have a more efficient and non-controversial way of obtaining them.

>>1526661

Good point. I won't argue with that.

Just for clarification, though, I wasn't thinking of a new human genome when I wrote that an sperm cell touching an egg is not a human. I was thinking along the lines of, "does it resemble a human? Is it able to think or feel pain?"

Technically speaking, however, I guess you're right. Like everything else in the abortion debate, it really depends on your definition of "human being."

[Anonymous No.1526695]

>>1526687

A fetus doesn't have a heartbeat until several months into pregnancy.

It doesn't have a brainwave until several months into pregnancy.

[Anonymous No.1526704]

>>1526690
If im not getting my facts jumbled, isnt it an egg in a perti dish that you fertilize with sperm in another petri dish. Christians would argue that the process is "Life starting" weither it is or not. Right?

[CaptObvious No.1526709]

>>1526695
>>1526695

bacteria don't have a heartbeat or brain waves; the e coli in your shit is alive, though no one cares about them. I figure we shouldny waste time on embryos either.

[Anonymous No.1526712]

>>1526709

comparing a chordate to a prokaryote?

nice fallacy.

vertebrate life is defined by the presence of a brain-wave.

[Anonymous No.1526720]

This is stretching into a debate on when life starts and can be defined.

>it is a human zygote at fertilization
>It needs a heartbeat or brain waves
>The entire process is bull. People come from cells.

pic related not /sci/

[Anonymous No.1526719]

>>1526695

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7853321/Foetus-cannot-feel-pain-before-24-weeks.html

[Anonymous No.1526717]

>>1526704
It will not grow into a babby in a dish, but it would in a womb.

[Anonymous No.1526728]

>>1526695
You can see and hear the heartbeat at around 7 weeks from conception. You can detect brain waves around 6 weeks from conception. At about 8 weeks from conception it is called a fetus rather than an embryo.

[Anonymous No.1526729]

>>1526611
If you haven't figured it out already, adipose cells are fat cells. We can create stem cells out of fat now.

[Anonymous No.1526731]

>>1526728

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1526734]

I don't agree with it
Personally I think abortion should be a last resort.

[Anonymous No.1526730]

>>1526717
Its to my understanding that people use in-vitro to concieve when they cannot naturally. Im assuming it is "possible" to implant these fertilized cell clusters? Thats where you lose religous people.

Just Devils Advocating right now.

[Anonymous No.1526740]

>>1526728
In other words, all human fetuses (unless they are dead) have heartbeats and brainwaves

[Anonymous No.1526741]

>>1526730
Going back to your original point about cloning. In-vitro is not cloning and nothing you have said makes it cloning.

Also I'm just a random passerby.

[Anonymous No.1526755]

>>1526741
You are taking the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman through right? Forget cloning, it seems to me that if i were ultra-religous, that would strike a chord with me as negative. Just throwing it out there.

Nice to know theyre non-angry-summer-/sci/ denizens who actually enjoy discussion.

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526787]

>>1526729

Actually, I forgot to look it up, because I got distracted by another reply. In any case, that's fucking awesome. We have no shortage of fat here in America.

>>1526720

It is, and like I said, that wasn't my intention. But I think my main questions about the stem cell controversy have been answered now.

Let me know if I'm wrong about any of this:

-- Many not-so-educated people automatically reject stem cell research, in all its forms, because of its indirect connections to abortion and cloning.
-- -- Abortion and cloning are the bad words of the scientific world and no one wants to hear them.
-- Similarly, many religious people reject stem cell research, in all its forms, because religious leaders oppose research using stem cells of aborted fetuses.
-- Other people are afraid that, if scientists are allowed to use stem cells from aborted fetuses, they will intentionally create fetuses for the purpose of aborting and harvesting them.
-- Stem cells can be uncontroversially obtained from umbilical cords and adults, but the research is not as developed and people don't know as much about it.

[Anonymous No.1526800]

>>1526787
>Abortion and cloning are the bad words of the scientific world and no one wants to hear them.

I dont know what you mean by "scientific world", but if you dont mean scientists and you do mean the public, sounds like good info.

[Anonymous No.1526806]

The thing is, people think that embyros are being aborted SOLELY for the purpose of stem cell research. Personally, while I am against abortion, I see no problem in using the stem cells for research as long as they aren't being killed for the purpose of research.

[Anonymous No.1526812]

>>1526787
Embryonic stem cells come from excess blastocysts from In-vitro fertilization, not from any cloning or aborted fetuses.
I don't even know if it is possible to get embryonic stem cells from a fetus.

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526814]

OP again.

I just realized that, in a few of my posts, I confused (or failed to make a distinction between) embryonic and fetal stem cells. My bad. Some of the things I read prior to creating this thread were confusing, but I just did a bit more reading and realized that I was really talking about fetal stem cells when I said embryonic.

I can definitely understand why people would be opposed to embryonic stem cell research, if isolating these cells would destroy the embryo. I'm not saying I agree, but I do understand it. Fetal stem cells are a different story, and as far as I can tell, those are the ones that you'd get from a fetus which is already deceased or aborted for other reasons.

Just correcting my own mistakes (and wondering why no one corrected me).

[OP !V7c78vXgnw No.1526820]

>>1526812

Figures that someone would finally correct me just as I'm typing that previous post.