Stem cells are not people; they cannot wear hats or own buses, amirite?

this is stupid. (some) stem cells come from a baby who is a person, one that can't form words but nonetheless still a person. imho.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

keywords: come from. By your logic, shit is a person.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And toenails

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think the point of people being opposed, is that one day they could wear hats, or own a bus. And if it's not your life, then why would you mess it up? That cell could find the cure to what you thought you could do with it's life. You follow?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Those cells could've literally done or been anything. You can't measure what never was. Those cells could've found the cure for something, true. They also could've turned out to be a serial killer. Whatever research those cells are going toward, it's helping people.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In embryonic stem cell research, they fertilize gametes for the pure sake of studying them, or get frozen embryos. I don't believe it's right to fertilize sex cells just so we can study diseases, or throw them away, like they aren't the beginning stages of the development of a person. That is toying with human reproduction and human life in a way that is completely wrong, to me.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Althought I completely understand what you're saying, I disagree. Advances in medicine are absolutely wonderful, and most good things come at a price. If everyone says that it's killing the potental of something, then what kind of world would we live in? "you killed that man, and he could have been the next president." And if a young woman or girl was killed, you could be charged with hundreds of first degree murders, because her eggs were "potental life."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The difference is that embryos are fertilized. Eggs aren't going to develop into a person without some type of intersession, embryos are already growing. An embryos isn't a potential life, it IS life. It is the first or one of the first stages.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's not like a fertalized egg is a baby or anything though. It's simply a clump of cells and genetic material.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Its a step in han development. You're just a clump of cells, you're just more formed and you can speak for yourself. A baby still isn't fully formed, a teenager isn't even fully grown, yet we don't allow them to be killed, disposed of, or experimented on fatally.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

*human

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I guess that's true. But at the same time, infertilized eggs are "the beginnig stages of life" as well. And just think about how many more people, infants in particular, would be killed as a result of the lack of scientific research.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But eggs that haven't been fertilized don't have the total amounts of chromosomes. They are what I consider the potential for human life. Think about how.many babies are currently being killed for scientific research that can be done using adult cells, or non embryos.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It doesn't work like that. Look at the Difference in population from the 1800s and now.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What do you mean?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Stem cells save lives. If you look at all of the people who have directly and indirectly benefited from stem cell research, you will be amazed. The medical field has come a long way in the last however many years, which allows people to live longer, happier, healthir lives. Anything worth having isn't free though. If you look at stem cell research, and just about every medical study, you'll most likely figure that out.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But I don't think that it's worth the lives of other people. They can use stem cells that aren't from embyos. I don't have a problem with that because that isn't coming at the expense of another life.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Stem cells should be researched, period. It's not unethical, morons.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That is a matter of opinion... moron.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't care if they come from adults, I care if they come from embryos. Embryonic stem cell research is unethical, in my opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Let the philosophers debate morals and ethics for all eternity, never arriving at a conclusive answer. In the meantime, I say we go ahead and cure diseases, save lives, and generally do what is most beneficial for mankind.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

At the cost of another human's life? I don't think it's beneficial for that person who you experimented on. The Nazis made a good amount of discoveries by torturing people, but I don't think that their discoveries negated the fact that it came at the expense of a human being. It really comes down to: when do you believe human life starts?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm the apparently rare person who doesn't care when life starts. Life starts at birth? Fine. Life starts at conception? That's fine too. Makes no difference to me. I'm not concerned about (potential) individuals. I'm concerned for humans as a whole. On a more sentimental note, I'd rather have some undeveloped, unnamed human, whose status as a human is debated, without dreams or goals, go in place of someone who has measurable goals and aspirations and who has already influenced the lives around them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So since you are the "apparently rare person who doesn't care when life starts", are you alright with kidnapping and disecting orphaned 3-year-olds if we find they might have some sort of information in them that could help stop cancer?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That'd be a whole different matter.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Technically not, by his logic. He's saying whether or not life is present is not an issue. So I'm just giving an example where life is clearly present, and seeing whether or not he thinks it is "a whole different matter".

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I meant to bring up the point that stem cells are different than 3 year olds.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Of course, and 3 year olds are different from 21 year olds. I am not making a case for disecting 3 year olds, I'm just pointing out the obvious problem with stating that the moment life begins "does not matter". It is, in fact, the ONLY thing that matters in these debates, either for or against the issue.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The anonymous guy is right. It is a different matter. When I said "when life starts doesn't matter", I meant with respect to fetuses (the subject at hand) because either way, it's still what it is: a fetus with fetus-like properties. A definition of life doesn't change anything. Whether life begins at birth or conception, the stem cells will still contribute greatly to medical science.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't feel I answered your question fully, so let me add this. I would answer "No" to your question because it's as anonymous guy said. It's a different matter. Like I said in my "sentimental note", the fact that the fetus has no goals, no name, no identity, etc. makes it much easier for me to use it for stem cell research. The 3 year-old has a name, can speak and hold a conversation, can give you a hug, etc. And btw, the human/not human sub-debate is NOT the only thing that matters, as I have shown.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I understand. I think your wording was just a little misleading. I think you just supported the human/not human sub-debate...you are saying a fetus is not as "human" as a born-human (because of emotions, etc.). It's still part of the same debate, as any logical argument that has to do with either stem cell research or abortion will be. Again, you wouldnt research a 3 year old for medical science, because a 3 year old is human in every sense of the word.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I was going through comments, and I just found this one and it sounds bitchy to me. I apologize. I actually agree it should be researched, I just disagree about people who think it's unethical are morons.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This is hilarious...New law: you have to wear a hat OR own a bus in order to be considered a person.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not too long ago, women could not own land. I guess they weren't people.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

We aren't talking about land here, we're talking about buses

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's the ownership that matters.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I haven't got a bus (cry2)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Neither do I. We're not people :(

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Don't worry, you can fix that with a little trip to your nearest hat store. :)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I have a lot of hats. It's the bus thing that I'm concerned about.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well we already knew FlyingGuineaPig was a rodent, not a human.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

So let's say I was born with a deformed head, and couldn't wear a hat. You're saying I'm not a person then?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You don't have to wear the hat as long as you own a bus.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Thank you so much for this post. I needed the laugh. May I just ask, my dear little anon, how you thought of something so geniusly incompetent?

by Anonymous 12 years ago