1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should Embryonic Stem Cell Research be supported?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by pjmrt, Oct 31, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    The majority of birth control does not work that way.

    Wrong. The mixture of hormones found in most oral contraceptives is designed to block pregnancy in several ways, INCLUDING blocking implantation.
     
  2. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    It can proven that women exist, however. :D To date, the "judgement of God" is an inconsistent, frequently incoherent, subjective (on the part of the one relating it) mish-mash of differing opinions.
     
  3. SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Conception does not happen until the egg is implanted, which makes that entire argument moot.
     
  4. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Conception does not happen until the egg is implanted, which makes that entire argument moot.

    Wow, you are really showing your lack of knowlege today. Conception is the union of egg and sperm and has nothing to do with implantation, which is when the fertilized egg embeds itself in the uterine wall.

    Most often conception occurs while the egg is still travelling through the fallopian tubes. If the egg isn't fertilized, it doesn't implant, so it HAS to occur before implantation.

    The best chance of getting pregnant is to have intercourse within the 6 days prior to and including ovulation.

    84% of the pregnancies implanted on days 8-10 after ovulation

    So there is over a week's period between conception and implantation.
     
  5. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Exactly. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as ectopic pregnancies.
     
  6. AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    While we Americans argue about the ethics of stem cell research, our competitors around the world will go forward developing drugs and procedures without a care about our positions. As a result, one day we'll be buying their products instead of them buying ours.
     
  7. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Then you and George Bush should have no objection at all to embryonic stem cell research as eggs and sperm are removed and fertilized outside of any human body and therefore have no chance of ever being "implanted".

    BTW, Happy is quite correct. "God" is an opinion, or more accurately a range of opinions. None of which has any basis in fact.
     
  8. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    I'm simply saying that the two most used forms of birth control have the following results:

    1. Oral contraceptives, known as "The Pill", contain two synthetic female hormones (estrogen and progesterone) which prevent pregnancy by inhibiting the monthly release of the "egg" from the ovaries.

    2. Condoms prevent sperm from entering the vagina so that it cannot reach the egg.

    Both methods prevent the sperm and egg from joining together to form an embryo. If abortion is made illegal, it would not mean that contraception would also be illegal.
     
  9. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    SAEMike - your ignorance is showing. I don't mean that as a slam against you. You're certainly entitled to your opinions (no matter how different they might be from anyone else's), but *please* let them be based on facts.

    Do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is? That's when the fertilized egg implants *way* before it's supposed to - while it's still in the fallopian tubes, before it gets to the uterus. That's an example of "mother's life in danger", just as an aside...

    But the actual conception happens a ways from THERE up towards the ovaries. And even that is a several-step process.
     
  10. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    You need to add "usually" to that. ;)

    However, your point is quite correct.

    As for trimesters, the 1st trimester argument bears merit, and until someone can prove the time of "ensoulment", it works for me. Once we know when "ensoulment" occurs, that should settle the argument. Right now, some think it's at conception, others not until birth. Most people are somewhere in between.
     
  11. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Most people are somewhere in between.

    There are three major definitions of life.

    From the cradle to the grave, or
    From the womb to the tomb, or
    From the erection to the resurrection! :)
     
  12. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Dang - not only can't we all agree on when life starts, we can't agree on when it ends, either. :D
     
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Again, can someone provide any objective rationale for drawing the line at first trimester? Don has indicated that his decision is essentially arbitrary. But all "arbitrary" means is you could decide to draw the line anywhere.

    And "ensoulment"! Gimme a break!:lol::rotfl:

    Not that I'm suggesting it, but does that mean as an atheist who does not believe in souls, I can choose any time I want?

    Speaking of arbitrary though, by objective assessment most jurisdictions have probably chosen a reasonable cut-off, and that is the SECOND trimester. What makes us human is our thoughts, and till the last trimester, there are no indications the "thoughts" of fetuses rise to recognizibly human levels.
     
  14. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    Remember too that adult stem cell research is not a controverisal topic, so what is either side going to say -- "Yeah, we agree on that one." That's not going to make it on O'Reilly or Hannity or Crossfire. What would these guys have to yell about for the next 59 minutes?

    Embyonic stem cells are an issue in this election exactly because the candidates have staked out differing positions. Embyonic stem cells show great promise, but as has been pointed out, the basic research has been stillborn to date, due to the lack of viable stem cell lines.


    Off topic: Roe V. Wade: The decision discusses the point of "quickening" or "viability" which is the point where the fetus can survive reasonably well outside the womb. That's the point where the SCOTUS drew the line in Roe V. Wade, if the fetus is not likely to survive outside the womb, then abortion is deemed legal.
     
  15. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    While we Americans argue about the ethics of stem cell research, our competitors around the world will go forward developing drugs and procedures without a care about our positions. As a result, one day we'll be buying their products instead of them buying ours.

    Not to mention many of our top researchers are relocating to nations that fully support their work. I know of several faculty at my school who have done so because grants they expected to get under Clinton's rules were cut under Bush's, and other nations are more than happy to have cutting edge scientists work for them.

    Yeah, becuase he's going to give them money. Big suprise.

    Seems to me you were complaining that Kerry proposed cuts for military and intelligence, and likely see no problem with Bush investing in military technology. I believe you've mentioned that many soldiers support Bush. Do you think they do so just because Bush gives them money?

    Our medical technology is equally important to the well being of our nation as a strong military.
     
  16. garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,410
    0
    Feb 1, 2004
    Again, please remember that when referring to embryos for stem cell research, we're referring to 3 day old embryos, fertilized in a dish.

    Also, stem cell transplants DO WORK. I've witnessed it first hand.

    I'm not sure why my original post with these facts was ignored. But, it is germaine to the debate.
     
  17. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Sure - without a soul none of us are anything more than animated meat.
     
  18. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    And your point is?:scratch:

    Actually I prefer "highly evolved pond scum".:D

    Seriously though, we ARE just another biologic species in a sea of other species on this planet of life. What sets us apart though is our minds, graphically illustrated by the keyboard and screen you are concentrating on right now, and NOT the imagined favoritism of various supernatural dieties. It is our minds that allow us to ponder questions like those before us and formulate reasonable(and sometimes not so reasonable) arguments. We are problem solvers and tool makers and users. And although other species possess these traits in rudimentary forms, none has come close to the level of expertise in all of them we humans have developed.

    I could go on, just ask Bogy.:rolleyes: But the point is, it's an exercise in futility to revolve your life around the possibility of gods and/or souls. Even if there are gods and souls, it is very apparent both wish to remain well hidden and undetectable to us with no interaction whatsoever with out mortal lives.

    If you have any credible proof to the contrary, I'm happy to hear it.
     
  19. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Unfortunately, I have no objective proof. Only my own experiences of what some would call a supernatural or spiritual nature. However, these experiences were plenty enough to convince this old skeptic of the existence of spirit or soul - and I'm tough one to convince.
     
  20. garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,410
    0
    Feb 1, 2004
    Ray Charles had soul. That's scientifically proven.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page