Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[MikeWaters]

My class today focused on this topic. It's not one I've given a lot of thought to. I've noticed that the Mormon senators favor this research, with the obvious private sanction of the church.

I listened to some arguments in the following video, and I have to say, that I lean against it.

To be honest, I am a little distressed that the Catholic church is the leading moral voice in the world, and that our church falls silent on many important topics. I don't always agree with the Catholics, but at least they have the balls to stand up and be counted. I grant that the leadership of our church may feel that they do not have the Lord's answers, so they do not prohibit abortion on the basis of sanctity of the fetus, they permit fetal tissue research, and sanction embryonic stem cell research.

Well, I guess that's why I am not in charge. And good thing too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...em+cell+ethics

[SteelBlue]

I've actually been pleased that the church hasn't come down against stem cell research. I currently favor such research, though I have to admit there is much I have to learn on the subject. I'd be curious to know why you lean against it. The zygotes currently used are already in deep freeze and aren't headed anywhere but eventual destruction anyway.

My pet peeve with stem cell debate is those who like to say "I don't really have anything against it, I just don't want federal money funding it." I simply don't believe these folks. I think they do have issues with it but feel they get more credibility if they try and make the financial argument.

[MikeWaters]

Watch the video. It presents both sides.

I think the argument "they will be destroyed anyway" is too simplistic.

If kids born with a certain genetic defect where we know they will die within a few months, should we harvest organs from them? Of course not.

I also don't like the argument of "people are suffering and need their diseases cured." That's a utilitarian argument. We don't think it is morally permissible to have poor people sell their organs to suffering people do we?

That's what I hate about this debate. The lack of ethical thinking by most.

[Archaea]

Why do we refer to zygotic stem cell research to embryonic?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why do we refer to zygotic stem cell research to embryonic?

It's the same thing. It's taking a zygote, or the embryo (after the zygote has divided) and turning it into a stem cell line.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Watch the video. It presents both sides.

I think the argument "they will be destroyed anyway" is too simplistic.

If kids born with a certain genetic defect where we know they will die within a few months, should we harvest organs from them? Of course not.

I also don't like the argument of "people are suffering and need their diseases cured." That's a utilitarian argument. We don't think it is morally permissible to have poor people sell their organs to suffering people do we?

That's what I hate about this debate. The lack of ethical thinking by most.

I don't think your first comparison holds up. These are zygotes created for couples who only needed some of the eggs. Nobody else wants them and they are in a deep freezer where no good can come of them. Kids born with certain genetic defects are live, fully developed kids who can have some life/bonding experience prior to their early demise.

If there were some alternative for these zygotes that was equal to the short but valuable life of the children in your example I could agree with you. But as it stands, I don't see much of a difference between being frozen for 20 years then destroyed, or being frozen for X years and then researched/destroyed. I realize there are adoption type programs, but they are wildly unpopular and there will always be an excess.

Also, please note that I never made the "but people are dying and need diseases cured" argument. I'm simply arguing that stem cell research as presently constituted isn't much/any different than the current fate of those zygotes.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's the same thing. It's taking a zygote, or the embryo (after the zygote has divided) and turning it into a stem cell line.

But I thought the point was we take it before the zygote has divided. Am I wrong?

What are the ethical considerations? Do they believe women will become impregnated for money only to have them harvested? I don't get the concern.

[SoonerCoug]

My thoughts have always been that it's fine to be against embryonic stem cell research, as long as a person has a rational argument.

I also think that a person who is opposed to ES cell research should be equally opposed to in vitro fertilization, since IVF creates a huge problem of surplus frozen embryos, most of which are frozen at -150 degrees indefinitely and never will have a chance at life.

What about birth control that prevents implantation? Based on one argument in this video, birth control that could act by this mechanism is unethical as well. Although, I guess all birth control is wrong to Catholics. (There is a Polish Catholic guy in my lab who is very opposed to both ES cell research and IVF, and I have no problem with his reasoning.)

My problem is when people argue against ES cell research on the basis that it has no potential to treat disease, since that's just not the case.

Here's another thought: Should we not donate blood because nuclei from white cells could potentially be used to clone a human being? In principle, any adult cell has potential to become a human being when inserted into an egg in the lab.

The fertilized egg has no potential without a uterus. White blood cell has no potential to become a human being without inserting its nucleus into an egg. Orrin Hatch makes the argument that the 3-day old blastocyst does not have potential to become a human being without the help of a physician and implantation into the uterus. I sort of like that argument, even though I'm not an Orrin fan.

In the video, the major argument is that the blastocyst has potential to become a human being. That's true, if the blastocyst is properly implanted into a uterus--but it still requires that extra step to have true potential. But the blastocyst in the test tube is still one artificial step away from complete potential. So one step away from complete potential to become a human being is bad, but two steps away is OK? I guess it's just a question of where you draw the line.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But I thought the point was we take it before the zygote has divided. Am I wrong?

What are the ethical considerations? Do they believe women will become impregnated for money only to have them harvested? I don't get the concern.

Watching the frickin video to understand some of the debate.

The embryo is destroyed after it divides, from the earlier presentation I saw. Maybe about one week old?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But I thought the point was we take it before the zygote has divided. Am I wrong?

What are the ethical considerations? Do they believe women will become impregnated for money only to have them harvested? I don't get the concern.

At 2 days it's a ball of cells called a morula, and at 3 days it's a blastocyst which has a cavity and a mass of stem cells at one side of the cavity called the "inner cell mass." The inner cell mass i the location from which embryonic stem cells are harvested.