First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Views on Stem Cell Research
5816 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Jacksonville,FL
Offline
Posted 1/2/10
I'm very interested in what people think about this particular subject of talk. If stem cells are predicted to cure cancer or help the body somehow why not do research instead of bashing it to the ground with all the talks of killing unborn babies. I'm sure that the pros of the research would outweigh the cons. The only thing that is basically keeping scientist from doing this kind of research is the religious community. I'm not sure about other countries but in america, i think obama is allowing the research of this kind of experiement. What about other countries, are they allowing this kind of research? and what about your views on this subject
Posted 1/3/10 , edited 1/4/10

sopheaku wrote:

I'm very interested in what people think about this particular subject of talk. If stem cells are predicted to cure cancer or help the body somehow why not do research instead of bashing it to the ground with all the talks of killing unborn babies. I'm sure that the pros of the research would outweigh the cons. The only thing that is basically keeping scientist from doing this kind of research is the religious community. I'm not sure about other countries but in america, i think obama is allowing the research of this kind of experiement. What about other countries, are they allowing this kind of research? and what about your views on this subject

The general concept of a stem cell is a natural and biological substance, that can be programed to become any organic cellular membranes. It can be cultivated from a baby's umbilical cord blood, and thus no harm will come to the baby at all for the sake of stem cell research.

Therefore the moral and ethical dilemma comes after the completion of stem cell technology, when we could replace one of the two genders of the human specie reproduction function with this technology. If not all.

It's only in a patriarchal society, when all men automatically assume their given gender role. Not earned through their efforts in masculinity. Therefore we should ask ourselves this; are men doing enough these days to call themselves "masculine" and thereby them being "sexy"? When individually our values on gender roles and standards on sexuality aren't all the same.

Because we could soon be approaching to the question of "why needing men/women/sexual reproduction", when we can program and build a baby from stem cell technology.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 1/4/10 , edited 1/4/10
I believe the controversy regarding stem cell research is embryonic stem cells. Some scientists want to harvest embryonic stem cells from aborted babies and use them in therapies and research. I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research because abortion is murder and embryonic stem cells should not be used to try and justify such a wicked horrible thing. Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, it's just that it doesn't receive federal funding (it might now due to president Obama). The thing they don't tell you is that within the private sector there is not much investment. Why? Because embryonic stem cell research isn't very promising and we are making greater gains by using the stem cells of living humans. Stem cell research is a personal thing for me, my grandfather has multiple miloma cancer and he is a patient at the Arkansas cancer research center (they travel hundreds of miles for an appointment, it's a top notch research institute). He received a stem cell transplant by donating his own stem cells that later went through some process (I'm not sure how it works). After this process they put them back in his body and that helped put his cancer in remission. We are making greater gains using the stem cells of living humans and should focus our research where we see the most yield coming from. The federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research done from the cells of aborted children.
362 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Boston, Ma
Offline
Posted 1/4/10
Im a pro abortion person myself, but let me ask those who are against stem cell research a question.
Do you really think that people would have more abortions if this were allowed to happen?
I seriously doubt someone would have a child just to abort it for stem cells, and this could be a positive to come out of something that you previously thought as murder. If a "life" that was going to be lost anyways saves a life, is it not a moral justification in your mind?

Im personally tired of religion getting in the way of science and its progress. If you don't want to use stem cells to save your life thats fine, but how is it fair that you should decide what is morally correct for someone who is say an atheist, or a buddhist especially when it is a matter of life or death.
Posted 1/4/10

digs wrote:

I believe the controversy regarding stem cell research is embryonic stem cells. Some scientists want to harvest embryonic stem cells from aborted babies and use them in therapies and research. I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research because abortion is murder and embryonic stem cells should not be used to try and justify such a wicked horrible thing. Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, it's just that it doesn't receive federal funding (it might now due to president Obama). The thing they don't tell you is that within the private sector there is not much investment. Why? Because embryonic stem cell research isn't very promising and we are making greater gains by using the stem cells of living humans. Stem cell research is a personal thing for me, my grandfather has multiple miloma cancer and he is a patient at the Arkansas cancer research center (they travel hundreds of miles for an appointment, it's a top notch research institute). He received a stem cell transplant by donating his own stem cells that later went through some process (I'm not sure how it works). After this process they put them back in his body and that helped put his cancer in remission. We are making greater gains using the stem cells of living humans and should focus our research where we see the most yield coming from. The federal government should not fund embryonic stem cell research done from the cells of aborted children.

OBJECTION!

Aside from that, since the cause of multiple myeloma cancer are abnormal plasma cells within the bone marrow. It's therefore possible to incubate normal plasma cells directly from the bone marrow of a multiple myeloma cancer patient. And cell incubation isn't the same as stem cell research, so don't get the two mixed up.

Seriously, this is why I dread scientific debates using only soundbites. Therefore:


Dragonbow0 wrote:

Im a pro abortion person myself, but let me ask those who are against stem cell research a question.
Do you really think that people would have more abortions if this were allowed to happen?
I seriously doubt someone would have a child just to abort it for stem cells, and this could be a positive to come out of something that you previously thought as murder. If a "life" that was going to be lost anyways saves a life, is it not a moral justification in your mind?

Im personally tired of religion getting in the way of science and its progress. If you don't want to use stem cells to save your life thats fine, but how is it fair that you should decide what is morally correct for someone who is say an atheist, or a buddhist especially when it is a matter of life or death.

This doesn't have to be a debate about abortion, unless you won't realize just how baseless political and religious soundbites can be in a scientific debate.

So snap out of it! Just because someone got his science wrong doesn't mean you need to do the same for the sake of arguing.
362 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Boston, Ma
Offline
Posted 1/4/10
I wasn't posting for the sake of argument. I just like to ask questions that make people of any opinion think, and if they have a question for me then I would apreciate them allowing me to rethink something based on a well worded question.
Posted 1/4/10

Dragonbow0 wrote:

I wasn't posting for the sake of argument. I just like to ask questions that make people of any opinion think, and if they have a question for me then I would apreciate them allowing me to rethink something based on a well worded question.

Then rethink of it this way; since stem cell technology can virtually incubate any organic cellular membrane possible, its implementation is therefore much broader than the simple moral and ethical question of abortion or saving lives. Don't you think? Because we could be asking why we must engage ourselves in sexual activity for the sake of procreation, when we can incubate a whole baby without our women going through pregnancy.

Or for that matter, why should we take care of our own bodies at all? When we can incubate just about any organic cellular membrane to replace a damaged one. How we should reevaluate our humanity with the freedom of incubating our own body parts? When the vessels of our individual existences are no longer sacred, thereby us loosing more dignity, moral stance, as well as ethic codes that used to make us humans.

That's what I would like to know as an amateur social scientist. And this debate just became my virtual humanity incubation chamber.
362 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Boston, Ma
Offline
Posted 1/4/10
I think morals would get in the way of making people without the organic element. Someone always has an opposite opinion, and that is what makes life so interesting. I take care of my body, becuase some people are against cellular membrane research. This in turn makes it very expensive, and out of my price range even though im fairly well-off. I dont think that we would loose our moral if we could grow body parts with thath much ease, because even if you can grow a body part you cant bring someone back to life so murder would still be a relevant moral. I always enjoy exchanging words with you Dom, you always make me think, but I'm going to sleep now Ill respond to you witty comeback tomorrow.
peace
Posted 1/4/10

Dragonbow0 wrote:

I think morals would get in the way of making people without the organic element. Someone always has an opposite opinion, and that is what makes life so interesting. I take care of my body, becuase some people are against cellular membrane research. This in turn makes it very expensive, and out of my price range even though im fairly well-off. I dont think that we would loose our moral if we could grow body parts with thath much ease, because even if you can grow a body part you cant bring someone back to life so murder would still be a relevant moral. I always enjoy exchanging words with you Dom, you always make me think, but I'm going to sleep now Ill respond to you witty comeback tomorrow.
peace

You're welcome.

And before you go, here's something for you to meditate upon how individual humans value their own lives based on how happy they are, and how the freedom of choice can actually change their value of happiness.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/5/10
I fail to understand how improvement of our species could be harmful. The heartwrenching moral dilemmas I would leave to those who care.
Posted 1/5/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

I fail to understand how improvement of our species could be harmful. The heartwrenching moral dilemmas I would leave to those who care.

Well think of it this way; by the time when stem cell technology becomes a part of our universal health care system, how can we dignify individual dignity? When we can simply switch our physical body not because they were damaged, but we just didn't like what we were born with. And then call it an improvement of our specie's overall mental health via better self-image.

Do you think I'm making this up? Well then how would you justify the mentality of normal people undertaking plastic surgery, when they don't need it because they just want to "feel" happy about themselves having that "perfect" self-image. But are they truly happy with themselves? When they based their happiness on a fabricated appearance.

Not to mention when we mess around with our perceptions in our brains, we loose our authenticity about reality and each other.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/5/10

Well think of it this way; by the time when stem cell technology becomes a part of our universal health care system, how can we dignify individual dignity? When we can simply switch our physical body not because they were damaged, but we just didn't like what we were born with. And then call it an improvement of our specie's overall mental health via better self-image.


But that is not an inherent flaw of research or technology. It points towards a flaw in our biological setup. I have to disagree that switching bodies for reasons other than practical ones is 'wrong'. Yes, I admit, viewed from the current, prevailing perspective as to what a human and human life is, it will detract from our species, but I find it somewhat unfair to judge the future with what will then be an outdated perspective.


Do you think I'm making this up? Well then how would you justify the mentality of normal people undertaking plastic surgery, when they don't need it because they just want to "feel" happy about themselves having that "perfect" self-image. But are they truly happy with themselves? When they based their happiness on a fabricated appearance.


The freedom to make mistakes and the possibility of learning, should be reserved for people, if we accept that our society should, ideally, be constructed in such a way as to facilitate the attainment of happiness. I'm not accusing you of having made it up, we are discussing hypothetical matters, and yes, I have to admit that the modification of the human body for aesthetic purposes is feasible. I don't think, thought, that any ought follows from that.


Not to mention when we mess around with our perceptions in our brains, we loose our authenticity about reality and each other.


The videos were astonishing, but they further prove that the brain is a regulatory system that carries information in addition. There is nothing to suggest that it is anything more. As a corollary, if we mess with the brain or even the whole human body, that is it, it does not mean anything more. Not many would consider deliberately constructing crippled creatures for the hell of it, so that does not really threaten us. Generally, I would say that the issue raised is resolved by legislation requiring any modifications to be in the unborn being's interest. As for existing humans, I don't think there should be any limitations not arising from the rights of other people. (eg, since I value my life, I don't want a formerly convicted murderer in my neighborhood running around with a greatly enhanced muscular system, but I don't care if he is given a new kidney to extend his life, two, four, eight or even sixteen, if an indefinite number of kidneys are available).

I hope I have been able to address the points raised.
Posted 1/5/10 , edited 1/5/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


Well think of it this way; by the time when stem cell technology becomes a part of our universal health care system, how can we dignify individual dignity? When we can simply switch our physical body not because they were damaged, but we just didn't like what we were born with. And then call it an improvement of our specie's overall mental health via better self-image.


But that is not an inherent flaw of research or technology. It points towards a flaw in our biological setup. I have to disagree that switching bodies for reasons other than practical ones is 'wrong'. Yes, I admit, viewed from the current, prevailing perspective as to what a human and human life is, it will detract from our species, but I find it somewhat unfair to judge the future with what will then be an outdated perspective.


Do you think I'm making this up? Well then how would you justify the mentality of normal people undertaking plastic surgery, when they don't need it because they just want to "feel" happy about themselves having that "perfect" self-image. But are they truly happy with themselves? When they based their happiness on a fabricated appearance.


The freedom to make mistakes and the possibility of learning, should be reserved for people, if we accept that our society should, ideally, be constructed in such a way as to facilitate the attainment of happiness. I'm not accusing you of having made it up, we are discussing hypothetical matters, and yes, I have to admit that the modification of the human body for aesthetic purposes is feasible. I don't think, thought, that any ought follows from that.


Not to mention when we mess around with our perceptions in our brains, we loose our authenticity about reality and each other.


The videos were astonishing, but they further prove that the brain is a regulatory system that carries information in addition. There is nothing to suggest that it is anything more. As a corollary, if we mess with the brain or even the whole human body, that is it, it does not mean anything more. Not many would consider deliberately constructing crippled creatures for the hell of it, so that does not really threaten us. Generally, I would say that the issue raised is resolved by legislation requiring any modifications to be in the unborn being's interest. As for existing humans, I don't think there should be any limitations not arising from the rights of other people. (eg, since I value my life, I don't want a formerly convicted murderer in my neighborhood running around with a greatly enhanced muscular system, but I don't care if he is given a new kidney to extend his life, two, four, eight or even sixteen, if an indefinite number of kidneys are available).

I hope I have been able to address the points raised.

You sure did. And once again just like your other statement, your clarity at conveying your message impresses me(that, or I'm just easily impressed today ).

And based on your message, I'm assuming that you're pro-choice by virtue. While you're relying on legislation to uphold a status quo on your values. And they still all point to what suppose to make us happy.

However, you should also know, and I would like to set aside this debate by making a new topic for discussion, that while our individual pursuit to happiness is what ultimately dignify us, the method that we've been applying via freedom of choice is actually counterproductive. Not only that, we've also been underestimating just what truly motivates us to go beyond our own expectation. While we keep undermining the same motivational element.

Furthermore, an over-reliance on legislation to protect our human values had actually undermined our natural ability at being humane.

And no, this has nothing to do with our brains suffering from a biological setup. When it's got everything to do with what ultimately is our value on human nature, regardless of material wealth or social status.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/6/10 , edited 1/6/10

You sure did. And once again just like your other statement, your clarity at conveying your message impresses me(that, or I'm just easily impressed today ).


Most probably the latter. :D


And based on your message, I'm assuming that you're pro-choice by virtue. While you're relying on legislation to uphold a status quo on your values. And they still all point to what suppose to make us happy.


Yeah, I would probably be viewed as pro-choice, but in truth, I'm more 'pro-existing-and-viable-person'. I don't have values, merely instinctive opinions that I admit exist and that's that. I mentioned happiness not because I agree with the view, or disagree, but because most people do agree, and it is pointless to enter into disputes over practical matters with individual representatives of our society whilst disregarding its views.


However, you should also know, and I would like to set aside this debate by making a new topic for discussion, that while our individual pursuit to happiness is what ultimately dignify us, the method that we've been applying via freedom of choice is actually counterproductive.


I would contend that it is not counter-productive. Synthetic happiness is great, and it is truly astounding what has been revealed, but ultimately, the example of the photo lab dealt with irreversible choices: one immediately, while the other was rendered irreversible after 4 days. When the possibility of change is ever-present, the issue, in my contention, is different. And even then, we are faced with the possibility of making alterations to the taxonomy of the brain and changing our very behaviour and priorities. Additionally, in many cases synthetic happiness, in the above source, has been found to be on par with natural happiness. The lottery winner and the paraplegic person were about equally happy, but the final happiness attained by the lottery winner was by way of deflation whereas the paraplegic person attained about the same level of happiness through inflation, so in the case of the winner the happiness diminished, whereas in the case of the paraplegic person his or her bitter feelings gradually diminished to achieve a sustainable state of mind. The lottery winner had a bigger share of happiness, in my interpretation.

In addition to this, it would lead to a manifest absurdity to impose things on persons which are contrary to the needs of our biological setup. The fact that the paraplegic could accommodate to his or her condition as a way of avoiding being perpetually plagued by negative feelings does not lead to the conclusion that paraplegia is a condition desirable from the perspective of our biological setup, our genes. Just ask a paraplegic individual whether he or she would trade the dysfunctional state of his limbs for a great sum of money.


Not only that, we've also been underestimating just what truly motivates us to go beyond our own expectation.


This is an analysis as to how motivation manifests itself. It is fairly clear that the greater the incentive the more obligated the individual will feel to perform a given task. Where the mistake lies is the ranking of 'things' with a view to creating incentives. The observation in the video might seem revolutionary, it is not. The video is truly amusing, but not revolutionary. Satisfation with one's work does not equal satisfaction with one's life. The study in question did not appropriately address the issue with adequate statistical and psychological data involving actual work environment. The issue was analysed in a vacuum and does not point towards the conclusion that increased productivity equals increased overall happiness. Just whip an employee and he will work with great ardour, but at a cost, and for how long? The whole area of incentives involves thousands and millions and billions of variable, Dan Pink's talk appears to oversimplify the issue.


While we keep undermining the same motivational element.


In respect of Ken Robinson's talk I would say that we live in such a society that the great need for practical innovation needs to be satisfied. Yes, schools and high schools are hatcheries for academia, but academics are necessary if we wish to create a world where dance and singing and other forms of gratuitous self-expression are just as important as mathematics. It would be a little unrealistic to disregard our current limitations, many of which are budgetary.

As for play, I see no reason why play could not be incorporated into peoples' lives.


Furthermore, an over-reliance on legislation to protect our human values had actually undermined our natural ability at being humane.


Unlike the previous speakers, Barry Schwartz did not impress me at all. He is calling for practical wisdom as a way of tackling enacted law, when in fact discretionary power in several legal settings is hardly uncommon. Bodies legal, political and even natural persons enjoy a wide range of discretionary powers in a wide range of fields. A re-evaluation of the specific discretionary powers is always necessary, in fact it is a dynamic task, and Schwartz readily glosses over the fact that in the social formations we are living in, rules are necessary for the fair regulation of large numbers of people. I was somewhat uncomfortable with Schwartz throwing around terms such as 'the right thing' and 'morality' so easily. These two things are greatly ambiguous and malleable. However sad it may seem, in 21st century states appealing to morality and common sense is not possible. These two things carry radically different meanings for different cells and classes and persuasions and ethnicites and so on an so forth, in society. Here is where abstract thinking prevails over common sense. Clear and unambiguous directions can expected not to be misinterpreted with the same frequence, and generally most people can be expected to understand them. To avoid unnecessary walls of text, let me conclude my point:

If it is expected of a parent to do everything in the interest of his or her child, and the child in question becomes the victim of a traffic accident in need of blood transfusion, your average person will readily consent to the transfusion dismissing the question as obvious 'Yes, of course I want to save my child!', whereas a Witness of Jehovah will permit no such transfusion and will instead let the child die. Both parents wish only the best for their children, only the latter of the two employs some sort of unscrutinised, uncritical thinking, whereas the first parent appeals to what has been proven on several occasions to be the true view: blood transfusion saves lives, and this fact entails nothing, lives are saved, no question of afterlife raised here.

I am greatly opposed to common sense.


And no, this has nothing to do with our brains suffering from a biological setup. When it's got everything to do with what ultimately is our value on human nature, regardless of material wealth or social status.


Our brain has several limitations, stemming from various things, including the fact that evolution takes its time and in our arbitrary society, natural selection has been suppressed somewhat, which is fine. That the self-replicators that do not strive to be self-replicators will cease to be that and such genes will die out, leaving behind the genes that were successful in replicating themselves. Again, there are so many variables present here that it is hard, or rather, impossible to sum this issue up in just one question. The fact that we are here, puzzled by this issue, millions of us, must mean that we do not function ideally, that we are somewhat awkward and out of place.


Again, great videos (with one exception :D). They are rather fascinating.
Posted 1/6/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:



Our brain has several limitations, stemming from various things, including the fact that evolution takes its time and in our arbitrary society, natural selection has been suppressed somewhat, which is fine. That the self-replicators that do not strive to be self-replicators will cease to be that and such genes will die out, leaving behind the genes that were successful in replicating themselves. Again, there are so many variables present here that it is hard, or rather, impossible to sum this issue up in just one question. The fact that we are here, puzzled by this issue, millions of us, must mean that we do not function ideally, that we are somewhat awkward and out of place.


Again, great videos (with one exception :D). They are rather fascinating.

With your permission, I would like to take a risk at replying your post with a new topic. However, I feel that you've just presented me with a task that I think I'm ill equipped at. And I look forward to your inputs.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.