Should Stem cell research be funded by the Government?

[Sir Taliesin]

This is a tough issue. I don't think anyone that has had a child and seen it on an ultrasound, can say it is not a person. I have two and I can tell you that I loved both of them when I saw them on that screen. Even though they were nothing more than a mass of DNA and tissue. I got to see both my children well before they normally do ultrasounds. My wife had been pregnent only two or three months. They normally do it much later than that.

I can't excuse my feelings so easily, by saying that it was just a bunch of DNA and tissue. Really when you think about in the simpliest terms thats any of us are. Having said that, I cannot be for simply creating life just to do stem cell research. To me that is REALLY bad science. IF, however a couple has invitro done and they are sucessful AND they agree to it, I don't have a problem with stem cell research being done on those embryos. They will be discarded any way.

Someone may correct me if I wrong ( I sometimes am, you know), I don't think that they threw them out until their shelf life (so to speak) is done.

I also hear that there are other sources of stem cells out there. Those resources should be used as well. I understand that they can extract stem cells from the fat that is taken from liposuction. If that is the case I may
volunteer to under go liposuction. I have about 100 lbs I'd like to get rid of.
Seems to me that that should produce a lot of stem cells.

Also I have a soul. My belief in, and love of God will not allow me to think otherwise. Period. End of discussion. I will not ever argue that point!


------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?



[This message has been edited by Sir Taliesin (edited 07-21-2001).]

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: [b]Having said that, I cannot be for simply creating life just to do stem cell research. To me that is REALLY bad science. IF, however a couple has invitro done and they are sucessful AND they agree to it, I don't have a problem with stem cell research being done on those embryos. They will be discarded any way.

Which is it? You contradict yourself. If embryos are created for an invitro procedure, but are not used and instead given over for research, are they not ultimately created for that research, b/c it is a fact that more embryos are created then are needed for invitro.

I also hear that there are other sources of stem cells out there. Those resources should be used as well. I understand that they can extract stem cells from the fat that is taken from liposuction.

Yes adult stem cells can be used but they are not (and I do not know why, but the research has been done) as good as embryonic stem cells

Also I have a soul. My belief in, and love of God will not allow me to think otherwise. Period. End of discussion. I will not ever argue that point!

If you are unwilling to argue it, then how strong of conviction can it really be




------------------

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Moridin: If you are unwilling to argue it, then how strong of conviction can it really be

Moridin! Really, that is a bit harsh! I hope it's just been a bad day or something as I can't believe you would say that if you thought about it.

I am unwilling to argue it anymore as well. You see, there comes a point in many 'discussions' where it is not possible for either side to sway the other no matter how hard they try. All the impassioned speeches and rhetoric are falling on deaf ears and the only ones moved in any way are the ones already on the side of the speaker. That is the point where I always feel frustrated and angry that I cannot make myself understood or make the light dawn on my listener. Neither side is willing to give, therefore it is a waste of energy to continue 'debating' the issue. It is also often the point where civil discussion ends and baseless namecalling and insults begin. No need to explain why someone might wish to stop the talking by this point!

You don't wish to believe in a soul, fine. I shall not try to convince you and Sir Taliesin has indicated he doesn't wish to debate it either. For what it's worth, I don't need for you and Dramnek or anyone else to believe in the existence of souls for mine to exist.


Cloudy
------------------


Raindancer of the Laughing Hyenas Clan
Storm-Queen
StormCloud of the Black Knight: Heart Mind Soul Forever
"To sleep, perchance to dream..."

[This message has been edited by Cloudbringer (edited 07-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Cloudbringer (edited 07-22-2001).]

[Yorick]

Cloudy, you have soul and you have a soul.

Why is it that when person a) has something that gives them joy, peace and happiness, persons b) and c) have to come along and attempt to tear that down. Do we like making people miserable here? I thought friends built each other up, even if they disagree.

It upsets me to see Cloudy upset. She was not arguing that say, Dramnek had a soul, yet Dramnek tried telling her she did not have a soul. Man, if you don't think you have soul or have a soul, fine, just don't try and tell everyone else they don't have one. There is the possibility that some humans have souls and others don't you know.

No world religion seems to entertain that fact and everyone one seems convinced of absolutes that cover everyone, but what if that were a possibility? What if Dramnek does not have a soul and Cloudy does. Who is Dramnek to say she doesn't?

I think it more likely that we all do, but that some aren't aware of that fact. There are precedents. Some people cannot smell milk slightly gone off that to others is revolting and untouchable. Other people feel hot or cold more acutely than others. I hear sounds I never used to hear before being a musician. I became more attuned to sound, just as a winemaker becomes more attuned to smell, and someone with religious faith becomes more attuned to both God, spirituality and their soul.

Focus.

For someone who says that they feel or know something to be contradicted by another merely because the second person hasn't sensed it is quite dangerous. It is presuming that ones own experience is the limit of reality, and blinding oneself to learning from anothers experience. That is how we learn quickly. Another sharing their perspective so we don't necessarily have to go through it or see it firsthand. Science, medicine and history for example are all built on accumulated knowledge rather than mere experiencial knowledge.

Remember that the only thing one can ever proove is that they exist as an awareness. No-one can prove that even the earth exists because it could be a mental construct. You could be the only person alive in this total fabrication.

I doubt that however. If anything I am the only person alive

I actually had a fierce debate in person with my good mate about this. He argued we couldn't even proove that! He was trying to proove he might not exist! Yes he is a Christian, and we have many a rollicking discussion as he'll often take an extreme line to find the middle ground or explore an idea fully. He played Saxophone on and co-wrote "Groove Sound" for those that are interested.

Anyway, self awareness is an interesting thing. Is self awareness/abstract thought/artistic creation things that are of the soul, or totally resultant from the physical brain? Other animals have arguably greater mental faculties than humans - the Dolphin for example. The Dolphin, using sonar can identify a hidden object on colour alone, using sonar sending and reception. Almost telepathic. Are dolphins self aware? Do they create art? Do they hypothesise alternate scenarios?

Elephants memories are legendary. Pigs know on the morning of their slaughter that they will die and scream. Dogs hear sounds that we will never hear, and possess a much greater sense of smell. Sound and smell are both interpreted in the brain.

I have seen "art" a Gorilla drew on a show that attempted to humanise Gorillas. The "art" was inferior to that of a very small childs.

What makes us different from the animal kingdom if we do not have a soul? Why is a cat born with instict and a human not? Why do we love and hate if not of the soul? Love/hate. Some try and limit it to chemical reaction, but that explains the infutuative part, not the all encompassing love that lasts years. Hate surpasses fear and survival defences and even logic

And what of the thirst for knowledge? Cats are curious. Many animals are curious. But how many animals climb the highest mountain in the world just "because it's there"? How many animals have inhabited every climactic extreme, delved to the depths of the ocean and shot themselves into space? Do ants go and travel to another anthill to see "how the other half live"?

Why are we going to Mars? Everything we need for survival is here. Mars is barren, lifeless, ugly by comparison to the myriad colours smells and scenes of Terra. I hope we go though What is it that drives the search in us if it is not soul related. If you are a pantheist you'd believe your fragment of the great soul is compelled to experience all it can to take the knowledge back to the Universal Soul. If you are a Christian you'd perhaps believe it is God given intrigue so that we explore the creation and come to know the creator through the artwork. God given thirst to discover him.

Reagardless show me a consistent alternative theory for the depth and variety in humanity - in a single individual let alone the Race - that explores the above before dismissing offhand the notion that humans have souls.

When I see Cloudy, I see a woman with soul, a woman with a soul. If anyone else cannot see it, it is their loss. Declaring the contrary actually risks highlighting ones limits in perception. (ouch! )





------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

My opinion:

No. And I am ambivalent about abortion too.

Reasons:
1)Stem cells are taken, I believe, from human foetuses developed just for this purpose or for in-vitro fetilisation. The foetuses are then disposed of. I consider this exploitation and murder of the helpless. They would not be allowed to treat full-term babies this way. Nor even foetuses past the age of 28 weeks.
2)I also see this as a form of cannibalism and would not want any medical procedure for myself that involved the use of stem cells.
3)Even if such procedures can save lives or improve health it seems to me to be totally unethical to to do so at the expense of another human life, however briefly that life is permitted to survive.

Abortion: I consider abortion at any stage of foetal development to be murder. So I am against it.
However, I can see that to bring into the world unwanted babies who may then face abuse, poverty, neglect, is also undesireable.
But many people use abortion as a method of 'birth control' rather than using methods that will PREVENT pregnancy in the first place. Older people who no longer want children should be allowed free sterlisation if they want it. Younger people who do not want children/more children should be given free birth-control products and be carefully instructed in their use.


------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-22-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: Wasn't this question raised when the Nazis were conducting experiments on humans they deemed as worthless to save the lives they deemed as worth it. Isn't the fact that some regard the embryos enough of a concern to those that don't? It's not just a matter of what an individual thinks, but also what others think. We have to allow for the possiblity that we could be wrong. What do we lose by not conducting the research? Slower advances in medicine. That's it. Same status quo, just a slower advance. The human race has survived and propogated without it. What do we lose by conducting it? We risk the chance that the moral objectors are right, and that we are committing a horendous crime upon humans. We are also emotionally harming and disempowering a large section of the community that provide a safeguard for moral concern over human rights issues such as childcare, battered wife/child sheltering, care for the homeless and the poor etc. **Here's a thought: Usually the death of a child is considered worse than the death of an elderly citizen because of the unrealised potential and the life experiences that were denied. How much more in the case of an embryo?** The topic is a touchy one. Both sides have care for the Race at heart, but which side is damaged the most?

Well said Yorick! Very well said! I'm with you all the way! Also Cloudy, Moni and others who hold the same opinion!

And I speak as an Atheist, not as a Christian. However, I DO wonder what Jesus might have to say to you Christians who believe it is ethical to TAKE human life to save your own? I cannot help feeling that it shows little faith in the value of the life he GAVE for you...
Not meaning to offend anyone. Just a thought...
------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-22-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: Man, if you don't think you have soul or have a soul, fine, just don't try and tell everyone else they don't have one. There is the possibility that some humans have souls and others don't you know. No world religion seems to entertain that fact and everyone one seems convinced of absolutes that cover everyone, but what if that were a possibility? What if Dramnek does not have a soul and Cloudy does. Who is Dramnek to say she doesn't? I think it more likely that we all do, but that some aren't aware of that fact. There are precedents. Some people cannot smell milk slightly gone off that to others is revolting and untouchable. Other people feel hot or cold more acutely than others. I hear sounds I never used to hear before being a musician. I became more attuned to sound, just as a winemaker becomes more attuned to smell, and someone with religious faith becomes more attuned to both God, spirituality and their soul. Remember that the only thing one can ever proove is that they exist as an awareness. No-one can prove that even the earth exists because it could be a mental construct. You could be the only person alive in this total fabrication. I doubt that however. If anything I am the only person alive Anyway, self awareness is an interesting thing. Is self awareness/abstract thought/artistic creation things that are of the soul, or totally resultant from the physical brain? Other animals have arguably greater mental faculties than humans - the Dolphin for example. The Dolphin, using sonar can identify a hidden object on colour alone, using sonar sending and reception. Almost telepathic. Are dolphins self aware? Do they create art? Do they hypothesise alternate scenarios? Elephants memories are legendary. Pigs know on the morning of their slaughter that they will die and scream. Dogs hear sounds that we will never hear, and possess a much greater sense of smell. Sound and smell are both interpreted in the brain. I have seen "art" a Gorilla drew on a show that attempted to humanise Gorillas. The "art" was inferior to that of a very small childs. What makes us different from the animal kingdom if we do not have a soul? Why is a cat born with instict and a human not? Why do we love and hate if not of the soul? Love/hate. Some try and limit it to chemical reaction, but that explains the infutuative part, not the all encompassing love that lasts years. Hate surpasses fear and survival defences and even logic And what of the thirst for knowledge? Cats are curious. Many animals are curious. But how many animals climb the highest mountain in the world just "because it's there"?

Very interesting arguments, Yorick.
I don't think I 'have a soul', I think I probably AM a soul - an indissoluable body/mind/life creature. But I don't KNOW. I have had experiences that seem to indicate the presence of 'a soul' as separate from 'the flesh', but also I am aware of the power of hormones in the brain that can cause one to see and feel and hear what is not actually happening... I understand that illegal drugs can do the same thing in the early stages of addiction.
There is no proof for 'soul' and no proof against 'soul'. I'd kinda like to believe it... It opens up interesting prospects... but... You know me, Yorick!

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Yorick: Cloudy, you have soul and you have a soul. Why is it that when person a) has something that gives them joy, peace and happiness, persons b) and c) have to come along and attempt to tear that down. Do we like making people miserable here? I thought friends built each other up, even if they disagree. ................. When I see Cloudy, I see a woman with soul, a woman with a soul. If anyone else cannot see it, it is their loss. Declaring the contrary actually risks highlighting ones limits in perception. (ouch! )

Thank you Yorick. I didn't quote your whole piece, but rest assured, I read it and re-read it a few times. I can't even begin to thank you for your clarity of thought and evenhanded way of presenting critical concepts and ideas. It is a balm for that soul I have, to read your posts.


This is a difficult topic and the whole idea of funding or not funding the research and exactly what road that research will follow is one I suspect we will all see again in our papers and newscasts. Thanks to all of you who added your thoughts and feelings to a 'lively' discussion. Conan, it was a very worthwhile thread you started here.

Cloudy

------------------


Raindancer of the Laughing Hyenas Clan
Storm-Queen
StormCloud of the Black Knight: Heart Mind Soul Forever
"To sleep, perchance to dream..."

[This message has been edited by Cloudbringer (edited 07-22-2001).]

[Moridin]

This reply is an apology to Sir T!

SORRY

I did not mean that last line of my post to sound harsh (yes, cloudy it was a very long day *sigh*)

Just wanted to put this out there that I did not intend to upset or bash anyone or their thoughts/beliefs...so I apoligise!

------------------

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time

I have really been impressed here with all of the responses. Perhaps one day someone will start a thread on the debate of "people-do you have a soul or not". I will add a couple of more thoughts to this one and step back once again.
What if someone you knew needed a transplant of any kind....you were given the chance to donate...you chose to give up something of YOURS to help someone else. Evil doctors are not hiding out waiting for victims here. Have you ever given blood and why..
Moral arguements stand that this is wrong because life itself starts at the fertilization of the egg. And should be given the chance to grow. Seriously thow, if you base your arguement on the Bible there are a few passages that you must know...
1. God knows your name before you are born
2.All things hold together by Christs power
Pre-destined life is real.
This suggests to me that if you were meant to be born you will be. We have a chance to help many many living people here. What is wrong with a voluntary system for helping people? They choose to donate some of their life to help others. Organs are donated all the time like this.

------------------
Conan ~*~