The controversy normally comes from where we take the stem cells from, as we can't take them from animals such as that. Since we have to fertilise eggs and then not allow the babies to grow, people get up in arms over that. I'm in agreement that stem cell research should go ahead, as it's way too beneficial to pass off as being controversial, but at the same time I think that the only way to get the stem cells is to artificially inseminate human eggs. Which sort of sucks, because that's a potential baby right there. However, since it's not been made with the intention of growing up, it's sort of like a farm animal in how it's reared simply to be used for other things. Inb4Vegitarians inb4Abortion argument inb 4I'm told I'm completely wrong

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Can't they get them from umbilical cords?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm not sure actually. It would make sense to an extent because they're not really serving a purpose, but at the same time, they'll have come from the mother to feed the child. Might have to look into that one. :P

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah I'm sure this was an issue back when Bush was president, you can get them after the baby is already born so nobody is harmed but they still wouldn't green light it. Personally I think people being sick is just too much of a profit, nothing else makes sense ... :(

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You can get them from umbilical cords, but there was something like they have a lower success rate or a lower amount of cells to work with that keeps the other options used more often.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Nah, as it is they get most cells from bone marrow and since they are fully developed cells many times the immune system of the person receiving them will reject the cells. Cells taken from the umbilical cord have more potential to work than bone marrow cells, but less than embryonic cells. But since embryonic cells are still considered unethical, umbilical cord cells are still the best option I believe.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The best option should be determined by what works best, not what by how many people are opposed to it

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I agree completely. But the fact remains that progress will more than likely always be stunted by the "ethical" problems that arise from using embryonic cells. Anyway, I meant to say the best option available. :)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I really hate people's opinions on what is "ethical". What does that even mean? Ethics is just an imaginary sense of right and wrong.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Um.... I both agree and disagree. I think you are correct to question it, as everyone should. But I also think having a set of rules or acceptable behavior (forgive the simplicity) agreed upon by the majority is mostly a good thing. It promotes civility, or at least it should. The problem arises when people overlook logic in favor of their own ego and what, to them, is unarguably "right", you know?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well usually, ethics get in the way of a good thing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

you're completely wrong, you know how I know? Abortion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Very clever. Applause

by Anonymous 12 years ago

you're completely dumb, you know how I know? Potato.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I like the way you built on his argument. I'd like to take this advanced chain of logic one step further and say that I'm completely sexy, you know how I know? Lawnmower.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It doesn't matter how many cells make up the BABY, it is still a human life, it already has its DNA and the person's traits are already laid out.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You don't have to kill the fucking baby, you can get it from umbilical cords. And like someone commented earlier, using artificially inseminated eggs is the same as raising animals on a farm for research/food. The only reason it sounds wrong is because we consider ourselves above other animals, if we could get the stem cells from any other species but humans people wouldn't care as much.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

As I am against using animals for testing and there is a difference between using an inseminated egg and eating animals. Eating animals is part of the 'circle of life' as they put it in the Lion King, where is it ever stated that 'killing humans for testing' is part of that circle? Humans are viewed as above animals because, well, they are. They have a lot of abilities that animals don't. We able to foreshadow or predict consequences, we have the ability to make connections with what happened and what will happen, it is kind of like how the dog will knock over the trash can no matter what you do and we can create solutions to problems other than 'I am hugnry, OH I KNOW! Let's go eat.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So basically you're against research that isn't done by a consenting adult? Which is pretty much impossible to do for things like medical studies?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't care if you use the umbilical cord. It isn't hurting anyone and you can do the same tests. So why do people use other people to test for cures to dieseases andhelp people who are suffering.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Point número un, when was the last time it was legal to do testing on a fully developed human? Point deux, humans ARE animals, and if it wasn't for our ability to create tools we would be lower down the food chain. Point trois, it isn't using baby humans to test cures on. Point quatre, would you rather let a large amount of people suffer and die when they can be saved by the sacrifice of a few? Point cInq, you used a children's movie as a reference for an argument? Point six, *diseases

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, it is nice to see that you can spell, now can you think? Humans may be animals but we are abusing our ability to think by killing children. If we couldn't create those c tools than we would not have to worry about this because, well, we couldn't think about others dying, it would be the norm. with your point four or quatre as you put it, (yes, I know that is french) you can do the same testing on umbilical cords. Guess what? You are not killing anyone! OMG! GOOD SOLUTION!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So, our ability to think is directly connected to us "killing", not children, a mass of cells produced by mitosis? That makes sense. And our ability to create tools is connected to our feelings of empathy? How does your logic work? An congrats on figuring out that you can use umbilical cords, that was the first thing I said in my first comment.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not that I haven't mentioned the whole thing about umbilical cords until 4 messages ago. That 'mass of cells' is a human being with a DNA and genetic traits already in line, yup, that would be a human. People just don't think of this 'mass of cells' as a human and it hurts babies every year.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Doesn't hurt at all, and last time I checked, a mass of cells growing in a petri dish didn't count as a human

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It doesn't matter if it 'hurts' them. It is killing them. These are fertilized eggs. That would mean they are human life.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fertilized eggs in a petri dish which will die whether we use them for stem cells or not

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And no, most of the baby's traits aren't laid out yet, for instance, sex isn't determined till quite a while after conception (not sure of the exact week) which is why guys have nipples

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The gender is determined at conception by the sperm. All women's eggs carry the x chromosome as all women have two x's. The sperm can be either male or female (x or y). That is because men carry both the x and y chromosome. It is impossible to tell the gender until about 15 -16 weeks due to the way the baby develops, but the gender is definitely determined as soon as the sperm cell fuses with the egg cell. Fun biology lesson right there:)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hmm, because I remember asking my bio teacher why guys have nipples, and he explained it to me like that

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I honestly think it would be beneficial because not only does it save already living, suffering humans, but it can also help prevent future diseases. I had to do a school project on stem cells, and they have potential to even replace limbs. Honestly, I think that's much more important than "killing" a potential baby that can't feel or think yet. It's not like we are running low on people anywhere. What they can do is use the retrieved embryos from abortions and put it towards stem cell research. But there is also that thing where a lot of the people the embryos would be saving are old and have already lived their lives. So there are truly many ways to go about this.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What if someone had decided to do that to you when you were conceived? Then you wouldn't be here right now.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, and he wouldn't ever miss life. It makes no difference to the blastocyst since IT CAN'T FEEL OR THINK!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well if you think about it, it wouldn't have made a difference to me. It's not like I would've known what was going on.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

My thinking is, why not take the babies that women want to have aborted and use their stem cells? Granted, it's still a life (if you can call it that, but nevermind), but at least they're using their body for science. Yeah? No?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

They do that. Most of the embryos they use for stem cells come from leftovers at fertility clinics too.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn't know that, but that's pretty awesome.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101180.html Stop arguing about it people, it's not worth it. Stem cells hold the key to the future and could potentially cure cancer, aids, and revolutionize organ donation. So quit your bitching and use them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fascinating. If we have the potential to save thousands, if not millions or even billions of lives in the future, in exchange for one undeveloped fetus (which doesn't even need to die), then why the hell not? What is being hurt? What do we have to lose?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This is exactly right, I completely agree. Especially because, as the article states, 1) Stem cells can now be procured from skin cells 2) In virto fertilization can be used to create embryos that will be a source of stem cells, but never implant in the uterine lining, so they would have "died" anyways 3) And of course, the potential to save lives. Can you imagine in the future if your kidneys were failing, and doctors could take skin cells from your arm, procure stem cells, grow you two new kidneys, and do a transplant? That effect on modern medicine would be incredible.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Even though I agree with the whole saving a human life thing I just can't help and wonder the effects that it will cause. If we are starting to have a population problem with only 7 billion people and with diseases such as cancer and AIDS imagine the enormous population growth when we are able to cure that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago