Back
to top
Should we use embryonic stem cells to treat disease?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Let me start off by apologising, because I think this should probably be in the debates forum. However I don't want this to be a debate, though it will probably become one.
I am writing an article, and I simply want opinions on whether or not people think that they should be used or not to treat diseases, plus reasons why would be good too. I need both for and against so post any ideas you have
.
Thanks!
I am writing an article, and I simply want opinions on whether or not people think that they should be used or not to treat diseases, plus reasons why would be good too. I need both for and against so post any ideas you have
.Thanks!
0
reply
Report
#3
Yes.
The same logic is implied on organ donation. The way I see it, once I am dead I am no good to anyone and why should my organs be allowed to rot in the ground?
Embryonic stem cells are obtained through two means:
Abortion - Stem cells are harvested with permission from the "parents"of the "child".
From the umbilical cord - Same method, just not as many can be harvested.
These cells can become any part of the human body and it will significantly decrease the amount of people dying due to lack of organs.
EDIT:
Soon, I am going to apply for blood and organ donation, I would like to become a bone marrow donor too but, it kind of scares me knowing you have to be given anesthetic, them cut my pelvic area open until they hit bone and drill to get to the gooey inside which they need. D=
Don't know how often you are allowed to do it but most patients take 3-4 days to recover.
The same logic is implied on organ donation. The way I see it, once I am dead I am no good to anyone and why should my organs be allowed to rot in the ground?
Embryonic stem cells are obtained through two means:
Abortion - Stem cells are harvested with permission from the "parents"of the "child".
From the umbilical cord - Same method, just not as many can be harvested.
These cells can become any part of the human body and it will significantly decrease the amount of people dying due to lack of organs.
EDIT:
Soon, I am going to apply for blood and organ donation, I would like to become a bone marrow donor too but, it kind of scares me knowing you have to be given anesthetic, them cut my pelvic area open until they hit bone and drill to get to the gooey inside which they need. D=
Don't know how often you are allowed to do it but most patients take 3-4 days to recover.
1
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Scienceisgood)
Yes.
The same logic is implied on organ donation. The way I see it, once I am dead I am no good to anyone and why should my organs be allowed to rot in the ground?
Embryonic stem cells are obtained through two means:
Abortion - Stem cells are harvested with permission from the "parents"of the "child".
From the umbilical cord - Same method, just not as many can be harvested.
These cells can become any part of the human body and it will significantly decrease the amount of people dying due to lack of organs.
Yes.
The same logic is implied on organ donation. The way I see it, once I am dead I am no good to anyone and why should my organs be allowed to rot in the ground?
Embryonic stem cells are obtained through two means:
Abortion - Stem cells are harvested with permission from the "parents"of the "child".
From the umbilical cord - Same method, just not as many can be harvested.
These cells can become any part of the human body and it will significantly decrease the amount of people dying due to lack of organs.
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Report
#6
I think so but I'm on the fence tbh...
These embroynic cells can't actually turn into a foetus unless it's inserted into a uterus so therefore, it's just a ball of cells...which I think religion mixes it up with "life."
It can save lives and improve quality of life! If we can withdraw life-saving treatment (water, antibiotics)from the elderly suffering, why can't affect life from the beginning of the life cycle?
These embroynic cells can't actually turn into a foetus unless it's inserted into a uterus so therefore, it's just a ball of cells...which I think religion mixes it up with "life."
It can save lives and improve quality of life! If we can withdraw life-saving treatment (water, antibiotics)from the elderly suffering, why can't affect life from the beginning of the life cycle?
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Scienceisgood)
...
Abortion - Stem cells are harvested with permission from the "parents"of the "child".
From the umbilical cord - Same method, just not as many can be harvested.
...
Abortion - Stem cells are harvested with permission from the "parents"of the "child".
From the umbilical cord - Same method, just not as many can be harvested.
I would wonder how a person would feel having stem cells from an aborted, possibly unwanted, baby as opposed to say 'waste product' from a live birth.
I have an unease with the first but totally agree with the second.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Racoon)
I feel there is a bigger emotional cost between the two above depending on your outlook on life.
I would wonder how a person would feel having stem cells from an aborted, possibly unwanted, baby as opposed to say 'waste product' from a live birth.
I have an unease with the first but totally agree with the second.
I feel there is a bigger emotional cost between the two above depending on your outlook on life.
I would wonder how a person would feel having stem cells from an aborted, possibly unwanted, baby as opposed to say 'waste product' from a live birth.
I have an unease with the first but totally agree with the second.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Scienceisgood)
Would you apply the same logic if the cells came from an aborted foetus from a mother who had discovered she had cancer and had to abort in order to save her life?
Would you apply the same logic if the cells came from an aborted foetus from a mother who had discovered she had cancer and had to abort in order to save her life?
Tricky one. I honestly don't know. Logically I should say yes as ultimately the stem cells could be used to save further lives and possibly the mother who had to loose the baby could have some peace of mind knowing not all was lost.
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by Racoon)
Tricky one. I honestly don't know. Logically I should say yes as ultimately the stem cells could be used to save further lives and possibly the mother who had to loose the baby could have some peace of mind knowing not all was lost.
Tricky one. I honestly don't know. Logically I should say yes as ultimately the stem cells could be used to save further lives and possibly the mother who had to loose the baby could have some peace of mind knowing not all was lost.
I don't believe you can have a funeral for something which has technically (scientifically speaking) been alive and thereby is simply discarded/incinerated?
EDIT:
By this I mean the baby never had a birth certificate, a record of being born and thereby a recording of dying?
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by Scienceisgood)
Not saying I know that much about what goes on hospital but I thought all foetuses were treated as medical waste?
I don't believe you can have a funeral for something which has technically (scientifically speaking) been alive and thereby is simply discarded/incinerated?
EDIT:
By this I mean the baby never had a birth certificate, a record of being born and thereby a recording of dying?
Not saying I know that much about what goes on hospital but I thought all foetuses were treated as medical waste?
I don't believe you can have a funeral for something which has technically (scientifically speaking) been alive and thereby is simply discarded/incinerated?
EDIT:
By this I mean the baby never had a birth certificate, a record of being born and thereby a recording of dying?
but then this is off topic and has more to do with my sensitivities than the facts of the matter asked.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
