independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 24th Nov 2017 6:00pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Why we can't experiment on human embryonic stem cells
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/08/17 11:04am

morningsong

avatar

Why we can't experiment on human embryonic stem cells

Since it's so controversial I'll just drop it here in P&R




Learnt about the primative streak.

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/08/17 11:41am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Because we cannot. Jesus says.

DJ is da man
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/08/17 12:43pm

TrivialPursuit

2freaky4church1 said:

Because we cannot. Jesus says.


Exactly. It's the far right that prohibits this research to its fullest extent. There is a strain that is used for research but it could be a better strain. Conservatives make this argument that people are having babies then aborting them solely for the purpose of stem cells. It's an uneducated and ignorant statement. It's hyperbole and propaganda to scare stupid people into believing stem cell research is the devil's work.

Religion needs to get out of medicine and out of government.

"Despite everything, no 1 can dictate who u r 2 other people." - Prince |
http://bit.ly/unboxingprince
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/08/17 1:50pm

lust

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:



2freaky4church1 said:


Because we cannot. Jesus says.




Exactly. It's the far right that prohibits this research to its fullest extent. There is a strain that is used for research but it could be a better strain. Conservatives make this argument that people are having babies then aborting them solely for the purpose of stem cells. It's an uneducated and ignorant statement. It's hyperbole and propaganda to scare stupid people into believing stem cell research is the devil's work.

Religion needs to get out of medicine and out of government.




Hear hear.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/08/17 2:58pm

morningsong

avatar

The Conflict of Science and Morality. My podcast for the day I haven't listened to but I do wonder what do people think is the line, or should there be a line? I do, but it's very hard to gauge.

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/08/17 3:37pm

IanRG

TrivialPursuit said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Because we cannot. Jesus says.


Exactly. It's the far right that prohibits this research to its fullest extent. There is a strain that is used for research but it could be a better strain. Conservatives make this argument that people are having babies then aborting them solely for the purpose of stem cells. It's an uneducated and ignorant statement. It's hyperbole and propaganda to scare stupid people into believing stem cell research is the devil's work.

Religion needs to get out of medicine and out of government.

.

Please listen to the video.

.

This is a morality vs. science issue not a religion vs. science issue.

.

It is possible for a person to have moral concerns about experimentation on humans without reference to rellgious beliefs - Every University ethics committee will tell you this and the vast majority of these do not refer the issue to "What would Jesus say?". The question at the conclusion of the video is Where is the limit on human experimentation? This is a valid question.

[Edited 9/8/17 15:38pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/08/17 3:59pm

TrivialPursuit

IanRG said:

Please listen to the video.

.

This is a morality vs. science issue not a religion vs. science issue.

.

It is possible for a person to have moral concerns about experimentation on humans without reference to rellgious beliefs - Every University ethics committee will tell you this and the vast majority of these do not refer the issue to "What would Jesus say?". The question at the conclusion of the video is Where is the limit on human experimentation? This is a valid question.

[Edited 9/8/17 15:38pm]


I"m not watching the vid. But I will say most Americans equate morality with religion. Religious people don't really believe non-religious people are truly moral because God is the center of morality.

It certainly is possible to have moral concerns about life or how it's defined and used in relation to scientific research. But a stem cell is not human life. They can also be taken from other sources (opposed to the aforementioned propaganda I noted).

Again, a stem cell isn't human life. And frankly, science is all about human experimentation. There are human trials of medications every day. Why is the stem cell thing so vastly different to some people?! I don't get that. If someone who has a physical disability (like paralysis) or a genetic one (like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's etc) and has the cognitive ability to say "yes, try it on me, I fully understand what I'm doing", then where is the moral issue? Each person has the right to say "I volunteer as tribute". No one else as a right to step in and say "that's not moral". No, it's not moral to that person, whereas the subject themselves sees it as moral.

Science needs to do what it should to push itself to the point that we can fix some things. It's all in front of us, but someone somewhere is going to rain on the parade and say "Okay but..." No, Felicia, sit down. This is important work.

"Despite everything, no 1 can dictate who u r 2 other people." - Prince |
http://bit.ly/unboxingprince
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/08/17 4:38pm

IanRG

TrivialPursuit said:

IanRG said:

Please listen to the video.

.

This is a morality vs. science issue not a religion vs. science issue.

.

It is possible for a person to have moral concerns about experimentation on humans without reference to rellgious beliefs - Every University ethics committee will tell you this and the vast majority of these do not refer the issue to "What would Jesus say?". The question at the conclusion of the video is Where is the limit on human experimentation? This is a valid question.

[Edited 9/8/17 15:38pm]


I"m not watching the vid. But I will say most Americans equate morality with religion. Religious people don't really believe non-religious people are truly moral because God is the center of morality.

It certainly is possible to have moral concerns about life or how it's defined and used in relation to scientific research. But a stem cell is not human life. They can also be taken from other sources (opposed to the aforementioned propaganda I noted).

Again, a stem cell isn't human life. And frankly, science is all about human experimentation. There are human trials of medications every day. Why is the stem cell thing so vastly different to some people?! I don't get that. If someone who has a physical disability (like paralysis) or a genetic one (like Alzheimer's or Parkinson's etc) and has the cognitive ability to say "yes, try it on me, I fully understand what I'm doing", then where is the moral issue? Each person has the right to say "I volunteer as tribute". No one else as a right to step in and say "that's not moral". No, it's not moral to that person, whereas the subject themselves sees it as moral.

Science needs to do what it should to push itself to the point that we can fix some things. It's all in front of us, but someone somewhere is going to rain on the parade and say "Okay but..." No, Felicia, sit down. This is important work.

.

That you refuse to watch the video but assume that it is about something it is not says a lot.

.

I am a religious person and believe you can be truly moral and not be religous. This is your second false assumption.

.

The video you refuse to watch agrees that there are ways to experiment on embrionic stem cells without taking a human life or needing to determine at what point there is a separate life. The reasons ALL biological research MUST be ethical and moral is not limited to just when a human life is deemed to begin - There is animal life and what the research is intended for and how it is being done etc, etc, etc. Stem cells are not different at all. Bioethics requires all research in this area to meet the same requirements. This means some things are banned by law e.g. you cannot volunteer as tribute to science experiment that will kill you. Others will fail the (usually completely non-religious) ethics committee tests and requirements. The video is about where that line is drawn and not about science vs religion at all. EVERYONE will draw it somewhere and bioethicists (again often with no reference to religion) have, do and will argue this out. Have you ever seen a human study ethics approval form - I have. My research may have only affected the legal position of certain people and it was hard enough.

.

Some times Felicia has a point and she MUST jump and down to stop unfettered, unethical and immoral biological research. Finding ways to ethically and morally do the research is a normal requirement for all research.

.

You call for science to what it should to push itself to the point we fix some things has no reference at all to morals or ethics. It opens the argument to all possibilities on an hoped for end justifies the means basis. Should we grow people for parts for those who can afford them? It will allow people to overcome debilitating conditions. Should we allow research into creating people for a subservient sub-class?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/08/17 5:29pm

TrivialPursuit

IanRG said:

.

That you refuse to watch the video but assume that it is about something it is not says a lot.

.

I am a religious person and believe you can be truly moral and not be religous. This is your second false assumption.


I didn't assume anything about you. My statements were bigger, toward the issue in general.

"Despite everything, no 1 can dictate who u r 2 other people." - Prince |
http://bit.ly/unboxingprince
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 09/08/17 5:36pm

IanRG

TrivialPursuit said:

IanRG said:

.

That you refuse to watch the video but assume that it is about something it is not says a lot.

.

I am a religious person and believe you can be truly moral and not be religous. This is your second false assumption.


I didn't assume anything about you. My statements were bigger, toward the issue in general.

.

The bigger issue in general is morals and ethics as applied to medical research. You assumed without watching the video that it was about religion vs science.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 09/08/17 6:11pm

morningsong

avatar

Can people think in more than one or two notes?

This is a worldwide thing so how can this just be about religion, and whose religion would we be talking about if it were?


Countries on the permissive end of the legislative spectrum include the United Kingdom, Israel and Singapore, and on the restrictive end, there is Germany, France and Italy.1 The United States is in a unique position with respect to stem cell regulation – while there is no explicit legislation at the federal level governing SCR, current U.S. federal executive policy forbids the use of public funds for many SCR activities. However, several states, such as California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have passed legislation which can be described as permissive.

I mean sometimes it's being mindful of not crossing lines that were crossed in WW2.


“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/08/17 6:52pm

IanRG

morningsong said:

Can people think in more than one or two notes?

This is a worldwide thing so how can this just be about religion, and whose religion would we be talking about if it were?


Countries on the permissive end of the legislative spectrum include the United Kingdom, Israel and Singapore, and on the restrictive end, there is Germany, France and Italy.1 The United States is in a unique position with respect to stem cell regulation – while there is no explicit legislation at the federal level governing SCR, current U.S. federal executive policy forbids the use of public funds for many SCR activities. However, several states, such as California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have passed legislation which can be described as permissive.

I mean sometimes it's being mindful of not crossing lines that were crossed in WW2.


.

Agreed - It is about finding the right balance from an moral and ethical view to maximise the development of new knowledge and applications without creating personal suffering of people and animals or subjecting them to immoral exploitation (including by encouraging voluntary tribute by desparate sufferers, friends or relations). There are already enough people preying on the terminally ill with snake oil treatments and procedures without adding a new wonder treatment. I can see people saying it has stem cells instead of something like royal honey. Bioethicism cannot be assumed to be just a religous issue - ask an atheist vegan.

.

It is about ensuring that what was done by unethical scientists such as during WWII does not occur.

.

In regards to stem cells: My understanding is that it is more difficult to use adult stem cells but, in many potential uses, there has more success with adult stem cells. Equally, the same thing can be said for other uses in the reverse direction, ie embryonic stem cells work better. There are ways and developments on how to use embryonic stem cells without killing a person. The issue with all stem cell research is the not just the source, but the use. This is the same as with all biological research. Obviously, there are uses no one will object to but other uses that are unethical or dangerous to the patient.

.

There is a worrying group of scientists that keep asking for others to suspend their morals and ethics and just allow scientists to do what they like. This is a concern for all people regardless of whether they have a relgious belief or not. This is not a stand against science - my job is helping people with their R&D. It is to stop what happened in WWII and elsewhere whilst promoting moral and ethical knowledge development.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/09/17 9:20am

Dauphin

avatar

If we murder 40 million people now for their stem cells, we can save 40 billion tomorrow. In other words, it's the moral question of if the ends always justify the means.

This is highlighted with the slippery slope argument (as demonstrated above).

Also to take into account is the unintended consequences, such as encouraging overpopulation.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/09/17 12:50pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

It is odd that some are opposed to morals being applied to some moral questions but Not all! How DARE someone JUDGE them on THIS as they JUDGE other on that...

I have a shocking idea for transplants and IVF: 1) allow a person to sign up to be an organ donor for a $20K(ish) insurance policy. 2) allow a stem cell company to supplement IVF by "buying" left over stem cells.

But also allow Roe V Wade complain abortions to be paid for by the government BUT they get a permanent birth-control treatment.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/09/17 12:54pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Dauphin said:

If we murder 40 million people now for their stem cells, we can save 40 billion tomorrow. In other words, it's the moral question of if the ends always justify the means. This is highlighted with the slippery slope argument (as demonstrated above). Also to take into account is the unintended consequences, such as encouraging overpopulation.

yet some of the same ones that want stem cells used are opposed to GMOs! LOL so they want to GM humans but not a carrot?

also many that support stem cell research are also global climate change zealots.... but they "forget" one of the TOP goals of the climatears is to put strict reproductive restrictions on women.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Why we can't experiment on human embryonic stem cells