Stem Cell Research, Genetic Engineering (3 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Same idiots... all the time...

Agreed we may be thinking of differing people though...

An embryo is alive... an embryo is probably more important then you Katie... It has the potential to be anything... anyone...
Being so inhumane as to slaughter our own kind on the basis that... "they haven't experienced life?" and that it could "cure" diseases after millions are slaughtered... is inhumane..

How is it inhumane? They are not 'our kind', they are a bundle of material that may one day be human. We have almost a limitless possibility for producing or harvesting embryos so why not? Why not produce embryos to harvest teir biological/genetic material?

Katie.. what you're saying is extremely incorrect... everything which is "alive" struggles to stay alive.. the difference between a human embryo and a chicken embryo... to an idiot is "not much" but to the intelligent the difference is the difference between a chicken and a human.

How does a human embryo struggle to stay alive? It is not a being, it does not even have instincts - it exists in an entirely subordinate manner to its host. An idiot sees differences where there are none.

My analogy was perfect... Killing babies for the sake of those who have experienced life... it's unjustified.

How so? One we are not killing embryos, two we have a huge supply we would otherwise be discarding, three there is no embryo shortage. We are not killing our young... men can for instance contribute to several million embroyos each, women also alot. And to answer the 'lost possibilities' of an embryo then you have only to look at the countless number of fellows who may exist instead.

In other words we are taking a handful from a pool of millions from which miscarriage and other events will take hundreds of thousands.

In fact following your reasoning:

Your proposition: An embryo can be a human and hence is valuable.

Science/Medecine: A sperm (forget spelling of technical term) and a egg (ovum??... its been a long time since yr8) can form a part of and become an embryo.

Logically then: Sperm and eggs are as valuable as human lives in which case men commit mass murder/genocide when they masturbate or use a condom and cause cannibalism when they do not ejaculate. Women commit mass murder of sperm (even more so when they use spermicides) and wilful manslaughter/murder of eggs when they fail to get knocked up and have periods.

So how about we usher in a 'no-wanking, no contraceptives and no periods' Act to complement your embryo protection act afterall what good is protecting embryos existence without protecting their constituent parts, precursors and creation???

 

[katie_tully]

Same idiots... all the time...

An embryo is alive... an embryo is probably more important then you Katie... It has the potential to be anything... anyone...
Being so inhumane as to slaughter our own kind on the basis that... "they haven't experienced life?" and that it could "cure" diseases after millions are slaughtered... is inhumane..

Katie.. what you're saying is extremely incorrect... everything which is "alive" struggles to stay alive.. the difference between a human embryo and a chicken embryo... to an idiot is "not much" but to the intelligent the difference is the difference between a chicken and a human.

Re Davin:
It's her child... a mother has a right to raise her child to the best of her ability... if it unfortunately dies... it is not her fault.

You have to look at it like this... imagine that was you... the unfortunate embryo...

Your justification is weak... take life... for life?

My analogy was perfect... Killing babies for the sake of those who have experienced life... it's unjustified.

Embryo Protection Act (Cwlth) 2007!

After the last thread, I no longer sustain the energy to debate with you. Or to even consider your argument for a millisecond. So I'm just basing this on the premise that the above quoted is just another lengthy tirade about me being wrong.
In order for something to be murdered, it must first be alive. An embyro is not alive.

End of argument. An embyro is not alive.
Shut up.

 

[Mc_Meaney]

From a personal point of view, I believe in Stem Cell Research. I have family members and my girlfriend who would all benefit from the use of Stem Cells.

For me, they wouldnt do anything...they cant mend genes...and they cant unstrange me.

Cloning on the other hand...Im not so sure about...

 

[Mc_Meaney]

As for the Embreyo debate...they have since found other stores of stem cells but none as fertile as an embreyo. An embreyo comes a person in the 2nd trimester (in the eyes of the law)...so if it's done before then, what's the problem?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

After the last thread, I no longer sustain the energy to debate with you. Or to even consider your argument for a millisecond. So I'm just basing this on the premise that the above quoted is just another lengthy tirade about me being wrong.
In order for something to be murdered, it must first be alive. An embyro is not alive.

End of argument. An embyro is not alive.
Shut up.

Yay!

Woudln't it be good if we could all ignore him, so every thread wouldn't turn into a 30 page semantics argument with a complete moron. He''s seriously ruining the forum.

On topic: Embryos are not people, even to the devoutly religious this ought to be clear.

 

[sam04u]

Reviving an old argument due to recent events ie(The U.S vetoing 'embryonic stem cell research' in the UN).

The argument was whether it was immoral for the harvesting and stimulation of the 'stem cells' (embryonic in particular) for medical purposes.

The major issue which arose was the question of whether an embryo could be considered 'alive' or as another member put it 'they are a bundle of material', which is infact quite true. I argued that they held the 'correct' genetic material to develop into a human.

Here are the early stages of an 'unfrozen', embryo. You can decide whether they are alive.

Growth of the Human Embryo
Week 1-4 After conception, the embryo will begin to "search" for a place to attach to the woman's uterus. When it finds one and plants itself there, the connections between the woman and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord.

Week 5-8 Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the woman's menstrual cycle. The brain begins to develop, and the heart will begin to beat. Stubs begin to be visible where arms and legs will grow later. All the main organs begin to grow. The embryo's blood type becomes apparent. Embryo is capable of motion, and the eyes begin to form. Most organs have developed or have begun developing. At the end of the 8th week, the embryonic stage is over, and the fetal stage begins

I think more research in biotechnology is a more viable option as it would 'force' scientists to be able to fully recreate pluripotent stem cells with absolutely no specific genetic material derived from gametes. ie(The basic necessities for human life, instead of just harvesting the embryonic stem cells from blastocysts in embryos).

If we can genetically recreate the steps in which the blastocysts are created 'mechanically', ie(with machinery). Then we could literally create an unlimited ammount of these pluripotent stem cells which could be used to reanimate human cells. The only problem would be the development of auto-immune diseases because of these cells with no 'genetic information', as there is with all embryonic stem cells.

I think the whole idea about stem cell research is 'future-primitive' thinking anyways. Genetically modifying millions of t-cells which could be injected yearly could be the answer to all the silly diseases we face today anyways. Including Cancer. (I could prove it if i had the right exposure... but like always... independant thought is disregarded....)

 

[Generator]

Keep religion out of stem cell debate

PM caves in on stem-cell vote

 

[bshoc]

Use the Embryo's we have already extracted (and killed due to storage) and harvest no more. I'm surprised some people consider this a religion debate, heck I didnt know that only religious people were the only ones with enough brains to maybe consider the implications of killing one living human to cure another - and so far the christians seem to be right anyway, becuase if you guessed zero to the question "how many illnesses has stem cell research cured so far?" You would be correct. One thing seems clear though, too many women dont value life given the sheer reserve of embryos we have now (guess $$$ for that new handbag too tempting) - it should be taken away and never given back, along with many others that put national survival in jeopardy, its quite clear most women have failed in society.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Use the Embryo's we have already extracted (and killed due to storage) and harvest no more. I'm surprised some people consider this a religion debate, heck I didnt know that only religious people were the only ones with enough brains to maybe consider the implications of killing one living human to cure another - and so far the christians seem to be right anyway, becuase if you guessed zero to the question "how many illnesses has stem cell research cured so far?" You would be correct. One thing seems clear though, too many women dont value life given the sheer reserve of embryos we have now (guess $$$ for that new handbag too tempting) - it should be taken away and never given back, along with many others that put national survival in jeopardy, its quite clear most women have failed in society.

What do you mean by already extracted? Are you giving exceptions? Just clarifying...

Research can now only be carried out on excess embryos developed as part of IVF fertility treatment.

An expert review has recommended that the ban be overturned to allow researchers to create cloned embryos for the purpose of research.

What do you feel about cloning the excess that we've "already extracted"? Just curious.

Also, it's been known to "Cure Paralysis"

Although I know for a fact that this means little, sorry, considering for you, it would mean a life for a spinal repair. *shrug*

 

[bshoc]

What do you mean by already extracted? Are you giving exceptions? Just clarifying...

As in the current reserve of embryos we already have, that can either be killed for research or just killed, may as well be killed for research.

What do you feel about cloning the excess that we've "already extracted"? Just curious.

I dont feel any way about it, these monkeys in white labcoats playing around with human embryos have failed at ALL their stated goals thusfar, now they're suggesting they can clone people outside te uterus? Watch them fail again and kill another 15000 poor embryos doing it

Also, it's been known to "Cure Paralysis"

Although I know for a fact that this means little, sorry, considering for you, it would mean a life for a spinal repair. *shrug*

The results aren't impressive or even verifyable, more people per year "miraculously" cure paralysis without stem cell injections than with, "its been known" is meaningless, its probably conincidence.

 

[lengy]

Embryos are nothing more then single celled organisms with the potential to create a human being. How many sperm and ova die everyday with the 'potential' to create human beings? Why not harvest them from women and milk them from men and just keep creating more human beings? What is so important about creating another human life? It is not yet human, it is not so different from a bacteria. Life and death, live and die. It happens all the time.

 

[Generator]

Tony Abbott on the stem cell debate

BARRIE CASSIDY: Julia Gillard, your opposite number, this morning, called for a calm debate. She said that you're already misrepresenting the situation. Do you think this kind of issue can be handled in a measured and calm way?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, I certainly think that we all did our best back in 2002, and I think we came up with a reasonable outcome. I'm sure we can do it again, but I think Julia thinks the only calm debate is a debate where people agree with her.

Says the man (the Health Minister, remember) who does all that he can to twist the issue so that he can malign the scientists and reaffirm his own world view.

Abbott 'misleading public on stem cells'

I'm with Gillard.

 

[dieburndie]

I think if God doesn't want us to "play" him, he should stop being such an asshole in playing himself. I mean seriously, this god inflicts all these conditions upon humanity, and then when we try and fix them we are suddenly the devil. Also, I don't think the legality of abortion is currently being seriously debated in Australia. It is going to remain legal in the forseeable future. So the embryos should be used for something. Why shouldn't stem cell research happen?
Like everyone else so far, I'm against cloning though.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Tony Abbott on the stem cell debate



Says the man (the Health Minister, remember) who does all that he can to twist the issue so that he can malign the scientists and reaffirm his own world view.

Abbott 'misleading public on stem cells'

I'm with Gillard.

Me too.... this stuff i've been hearing, comparing it with the actual reproductive cloning of a human being and cloning human/animal hybrids... wtf? Where do they come up with these lies?

 

[AntiHyper]

Me too.... this stuff i've been hearing, comparing it with the actual reproductive cloning of a human being and cloning human/animal hybrids... wtf? Where do they come up with these lies?

They're politicians

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea but it's really pathetic. They're skewing a debate about stem cell research into one about whether it's ok to clone man/animal hybrids? WTF? I know politicians can pull some weird spin, but that has to be the most fucked up bunch of bullshit I've heard in a very long time.

 

[bshoc]

Not really, thats just one potential slippery slope outlined.

 

[gerhard]

how the fuck is that slope slippery. the very fact that huge amounts of new legislation would have to get through parliament in the future to make that legal pretty much stops that slope being slippery.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Not really, thats just one potential slippery slope outlined.

lol.

 

[Generator]

how the fuck is that slope slippery. the very fact that huge amounts of new legislation would have to get through parliament in the future to make that legal pretty much stops that slope being slippery.

Abbott on the slippery slope -

ALEXANDRA KIRK: With the good news out, the Health Minister then faced many more questions on his strong views against therapeutic cloning.

Tony Abbott says the arguments he and other opponents have used are based on human values, not religious teaching.

TONY ABBOTT: This involves the creation of a human embryo purely for research or purely for treatment. It doesn't involve using so-called spare embryos that have been created for the purpose of giving life.

So I think this is an important distinction. In my view this is a bridge too far for no good reason.

REPORTER: Is it a bridge too far scientifically or ethically?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, I'm not a scientist and so I don't presume to judge the quality of the science. I just say that it raises important ethical considerations.

A clone can be used for development up to a certain point, research and clinical treatment. Or it could be... can be implanted in a womb and be allowed to develop.

Now, I appreciate that the Lockhart inquiry said that this shouldn't happen, but my anxiety, given how far we've come in just four years is that they want a little bit of cloning now, and in a couple years time they'll want a little bit more cloning, and a few years after that they'll want still more cloning.

Very soon we will have effectively what's called now reproductive cloning. So I think thatthe slippery slope argument which was advanced by some people four years ago has very substantially been vindicated.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: You're worried about politicians, or Australia going down a slippery slope of cloning once you open the door to therapeutic cloning. But don't you trust politicians to put an end to that slippery slope?

TONY ABBOTT: I have a lot of respect for politicians. I have a lot of respect for scientists. But I think I have some understanding of how a professional enthusiasm can lead you to want to do things which the general public might be anxious about.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Fraser who pioneered a vaccine against cervical cancer, the world's first cancer vaccine, has written to all Federal MPs urging them to give Australians the chance to benefit from embryonic stem cell research, saying they have no potential to grow into humans.

Tony Abbott says he has, quote, "a hell of a lot of time for Ian Fraser..."

TONY ABBOTT: He knows far more about science than I do. But when it comes to ethical judgements, I think that we're all basically on a level playing field.

Source: ABC - PM

Our federal Health Minister.