Stem Cell Research: for it or against it?

Vaderize03, you are dead wrong. Their have been more thatn 40 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade and an even larger amount when you consider the whole world.

I have doubts that Christianity (in its bad moments) has even come close to that number.



By the way, post 100 for this thread!

 

The thing is, Jediflyer, pro-abortionists and those who see stem cell research as OK do not believe that embryos constitute human life. They vehemently oppose any suggestion that life begins at conception, because it would throw out any semblance of justification for these actions.

To those on the left, it makes no difference to throw them in the trash if you choose to or to destroy them and take their cells for scientific study. Lucky for them their mothers didn't make that choice when they were in that stage of development.

No one is going to change their minds on this issue here, so what is being said is just reaffirmations of one's beliefs that are already held.

I don't have to live by them.

No kidding, right? Last I checked humans had free will to choose what to believe in. No one is forcing you to believe what I do. But, we are all accountable for the choices we make in life, IMHO. Of course there have been atrocities committed by "Christians" over the centuries, but there have been over 40 million Abortions since 1973. Maybe even just one of those children could have been the next Einstein or Tiger Woods or Stephen Speilberg. 40 Million. Can you imagine how many people that actually is? It is truly an American Holocost, IMHO. The same, of course, can be said for the Jewish Holocost victims. Many future generations were snuffed out, not just the ones that died there. A sign of the times, I guess. Human life has been downgraded so much these days that we're now destroying it and utilizing it in scientific experiments. I don't think an embryo or a fetus can sign a consent form, the last I checked. Unborn children are the most innocent of us all, they have no voice, yet they are considered an "inconvenience".

I still hold the position that human life, from conception to death, should be protected. That's the gist of my argument.

 

Vaderize03, you are dead wrong. Their have been more thatn 40 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade and an even larger amount when you consider the whole world.

I have doubts that Christianity (in its bad moments) has even come close to that number.

Do I need to remind you yet again that I do not consider abortion murder? An embryo has no idea it exists, and therefore cannot know it's about to be tortured and killed, as say someone getting the thumbscrews during the Inquisition did. I can't believe you'd even compare the two. I can understand it with abortion, but stem cell research? Something intended to alleviate untold human suffering? I know, you're going to tell me the ends don't justify the means and blah blah blah. I'm too tired to continue this right now. More later.

Peace,

V-03

 

Your were right Vaderize03, the ends do not justify the means under any circumstances.

 

True, but since I don't think abortion is murder and the law seems to agree with me, there are no 'means' to be justified in embryonic stem cell cloning.

Peace,

V-03

 

Please tell me Vaderize that you are not going to pursue becoming an OB/GYN after you finish med school.

 

For it to be murder, there has to be at least some form of self-awareness, however primitive. An embryo has no form of awareness at all. Awareness comes late in the pregnancy. A newborn is aware; it can feel hunger, or cold, or want comfort, and respond to this by crying. An embryo is incapable of any sort of awareness or pain.

 

Please tell me Vaderize that you are not going to pursue becoming an OB/GYN after you finish med school.

You couldn't pay me enough to do one of those horrible residencies. I'm going into anesthesiology/interventional pain management.

Please tell me that you're not quitting nursing for politics.

Peace,

V-03

 

Please tell me that you're not quitting nursing for politics.

Nope. I know that if I were to, I'm sure I could count on your vote!

Actually, I'm going to CRNA (Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist) school for my Masters in a few years. I may stay at the hospital I currently work at (I like it here), or transfer to the northshore of Lake Ponchartrain after I finish (where I'll be building a house on a lot I own in he next ten years. My g/f will be a Pharm.D. in a few years, after that we'll be getting married)

All the benefits of a great salary (they make more $$ here in this area than many family practitioners), and half the responsibility of an anesthesiologist. And CRNAs are in demand because it costs less to managed health care. Trutfully, many Anesthesiologists aren't all too pleased abou the whole thing, it got so bad here in Louisiana that they shut down the CRNA school at Xavier University precicely because of the undermining efforts of certain MDs. However, LSU has picked up the masters program this past year, and it is much more affordable to attend LSU than Xavier University (where my g/f attends and is getting her Pharm.D.).

I'm doing that because I like the idea of focusing all your attention on one case. I sometimes (including tonight), have just one ICU patient b/c of how critical they are, and I enjoy focusing all my attention on that one individual even if they are very unstable.

We'll see how it goes though, I may end up changing my mind. Who knows, but I'm pretty sure that's the direction I'm going to take.

 

All the benefits of a great salary (they make more $$ here in this area than many family practitioners), and half the responsibility of an anesthesiologist.

Half the training, too ;P. <----it won't read my markup code!


And CRNAs are in demand because it costs less to managed health care.

This actually bothers me somewhat. CRNA's simply aren't as well trained as MD anesthesiologists. I'm not saying they're incompetent, but the training is just not as rigorous or all-encompassing. This reflects a personal bias on my part, but I was raised with conservative attitudes towards medicine, and I guess I still harbor them.

I do wish you best of luck in that endeavor though, it is a great field to be in at any level, and if it makes you happy, go for it.

Trutfully, many Anesthesiologists aren't all too pleased abou the whole thing, it got so bad here in Louisiana that they shut down the CRNA school at Xavier University precicely because of the undermining efforts of certain MDs. However, LSU has picked up the masters program this past year, and it is much more affordable to attend LSU than Xavier University (where my g/f attends and is getting her Pharm.D.).

That's a bit much. But I'm subspecializing in interventional pain management, a wide-open field that is procedure-based and will allow me to have a clinical practice outside of traditional OR anesthesiology. That particular field has been undergoing a strong push for consolidation under the umbrella of anesthesiology, even though aspects of it are taught to many different specialists. We'll have to see what happens.

Glad it's worked out for you though ....by the way, how's the unit? I do a CCU month in december.

Peace,

V-03

 

ICU is a great working evironment! I guess I enjoy the autonomy I have here, and there is so much to learn. It can be quite challenging, which I like.

We get some of the most critical cases in New Orleans here, including every type of transplantation patient (lungs, liver - the most difficult, heart). I get a lot of CABG patients as well.

I think the worst epidemic we see today (and it isn't really mentioned that much in the news - not like HIV is) is Hepatitis C. Many patients here have it, and as you know it's 20x more virulent than HIV. Just about all the liver transplants have it, and it costs the healthcare system a fortune.


As far as the Xavier issue went down, that is the honest truth! Im not kiddin, that really happened

As far as the MD and CRNA thing: Of course, anesthesiologists are more competent in all the aspects of anesthesiology. I will have 8 years of college to become a CRNA, but I do not have a residency (thank goodness for that!) I considered going to medical school (I have the GPA for it - 3.7, I had a 4.0 before I was in the nursing college , that ought to tell ya somethin - they made it impossible to make A's, only one person in the history of the program got a 4.0 upon graduation from the college in nursing), but I would be too damn old by the time I got out (If I started now, I'd be 33 when I finished the MD, and then add onto that however many years of residency). I chose nursing because I enjoy more being at the bedside (and I don't want to be on call every damn day hehehe, man that really sux). Most of the MDs I work with are really down to earth guys and easy to get along with (except for the staff surgeons - especially the liver transplant staff surgeon - he can be a real arse - lol).

Although taught and performed in the schooling, CRNAs cannot perform many of the procedures that the MDs can (at least as the law states here in LA). CRNAs mainly just focus on general anesthesia, I think only in rural areas are they allowed to do epidurals and such. Most of the time a group of CRNAs works under the auspices of an MD, as it should be.

I think helping patients through pain is definetly a rewarding job. I used to work in an Orthopedic/Neurology floor before transferring to ICU, and we dealt with pain control issues all the time. I see the results of my work in caring for these patients day in and day out, and I always leave feeling fulfilled, like I've done something that matters.

I wish you the best of luck as well, and I'm sure you will find the experience of treating patients as I have had caring for them.

 

Ha ha DM, call does suc. So do irritating egotistical surgeons ;p. As a matter of fact, I am working night shift in the ER until monday night (that's where I am right now).

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO tired right now......


By the way, to be on topic:

Maybe even just one of those children could have been the next Einstein or Tiger Woods or Stephen Speilberg.

Yeah, or another Hitler or Saddam. You lose that potential every time there is a miscarriage as well. Oh well-different definitions of life and such, I guess . You're right, we're probably not gonna convice each other, but it's all good .


Peace,

V-03

 

I used to work as a trauma tech in the ER when I was in college.

We used to see some really wacky stuff at night.... I work nights now, and have been for a while, and I'm used to it now. But when you first start, it's hell. I was sure to be extra careful in the ER, because you never know what kind of crap or disease people may bring in there (especially at night).

Ugh.

Be sure to catch up on some sleep!

 

Judging by what I read on page 1, I'm surprised there's an actual debate.

I did read page 1 thoroughly, but I skimmed through pages 2, 3, and 5, and I didn't even read page 4.

But I've seen all that I need to see. My opinions, btw, for the record, agree with that of Lord_Darth_Bob, as expressed by his post on page 2:

Limitations of Only Using Adult Stem Cells:

While adult stem cells have promise for some areas of research that should be pursued, they don't have the unlimited potential for research covering the entire human physiology. There are a number of unknowns about which body parts do or don't have associated adult stem cells. And, the ability to locate and isolate sufficient amounts of those stem cells from the body parts that do have them is uncertain.

Biological Age of Adult Stem Cells:

Aside from the above mentioned limitations of adult stem cells, there's the phenomenon of cellular aging which hasn't had much public discussion. The chromosomes in all cells (including adult stem cells) have a biological age associated with them. That is there's a finite number of cell divisions limiting the longevity of cellular life. Every time a cell divides and reproduces itself, a biological counter reduces the number of times those cells can again divide and reproduce themselves. This is the genetic basis for the aging of all animals. The number of cell divisions allotted (potential life span) is inherited from the parents. The only cells in the body that haven't yet begun their aging process are the reproductive cells (sperm and eggs). They being the source from which "unaged" embryonic stem cells are derived.

Arrogance in the Sanctity of "Human" Life:

Due to the sanctity of "Human" life concept, it appears that we humans put ourselves so much above all other living creatures that we would NOT even permit using a human embryo in research for the betterment of human life. However, we condone the use of primates, other than ourselves (chimpanzees and monkeys), and the use of domesticated animals (dogs, cats, rabbits, etc.) to be subjected to what ever pain, suffering, and misery that might be entailed in research to better our "human" experience. And, that is the epitome of human arrogance.

Edit: I'm COMPLETELY for ALL TYPES of Stem Cell Research, including Therapeutic Cloning.

I really don't see the big fuss here. Sorry for my ignorance, but I'm starting to lose the time and inclination to read threads in their entirety.

Does someone mind summing up the controversy in this topic? All I know is that people are fussing over "creating a life" to destroy it. Ohhhh no! People can USE dolphins and monkeys but scream at the thought of using an embryo which cannot be logically construed as a human being? Give me a break.

 

If you do not have the time to read the five pages of this thread, you should probably not expect someone to simply "sum it up" for you, especially since you appear to be so clearly dismissive of any arguments that might be made in any case. I might point out that the quote you post, in any event, has been responded to and discussed, along with other issues pertinent to this debate, over the past several pages.

However, for the record and because I do not wish to exhibit the same hostile sarcasm you have expressed toward those of us who find it very appropriate to "fuss" over creating life for the express purpose of destroying it, I believe the principal debate here is over whether embryonic stem cell research should be permissible, or not. This is distinguished from adult stem cell research (where differentiated cells are taken from umbilical cords and other sources) and embryonic stem cell research on cell lines which are already in existence (where the life and death decision has already been made). Many people feel that pursuing new ESCR is morally and ethically objectionable because human life is created for the express purpose of destroying it. Embryos can, moreover, be logically construed to be human beings: they are alive and growing from the moment of conception, and will be, if not interfered with or naturally miscarried or stillborn, born human beings, to whom we grant rights to life and liberty. There are a few more steps to the reasoning, but the conclusion is that embryos therefore deserve the presumption of life from the beginning. One may dispute this line of reasoning (though not, merely by dismissing it and saying it is invalid, successfully), but it is not illogical on its face.

 

Let me ask you this, Irishjedi49-

If science were to discover a way to revert adult stem cells to the embryonic stage, would you still have the same objections?

Food for thought .

Peace,

V-03

 

Could you elaborate on that thought, Vaderize03. I'm not sure I understand your hypothetical scenario.

 

Sure.

Imagine science figures out a way to activate/deactivate the specific genes necessary to revert adult stem cells to embryonic ones.

Would those against embryonic cloning object to such a course of action?

Peace,

V-03

 

I would agree with research that takes adult cells and can revert them to a stem cell-like embryonic ones, without the use of cloning, were it possible.

As I stated before, I remain against it when it involves unique embryonic life.

 

I, too would agree with your scenario, Vaderize03, because it does not involve the destruction of an innocent life.

There is nothing "special" about the word "embryo" that makes me get up in arms. It is the fact that I view it (and believe everyone else should also) as a human life with rights that need to be defended.

 

i am for it.

 

It is the fact that I view it (and believe everyone else should also) as a human life with rights that need to be defended

You are never going to achieve this, Jediflyer. Not ever. It is a noble goal, to be sure, but it just won't happen.

Peace,

V-3

 

You are never going to achieve this, Jediflyer. Not ever. It is a noble goal, to be sure, but it just won't happen.

His statement has my full support... I feel the same way.

Sure, Stem Cell Research, but executing that research on a living thing is a different story...

 

That's fine, Astro, but rest assured that there are many, many people who feel my way and that they are working just as hard, if not harder, to keep stem cell research legal. It continues to move forward in the private sector. If banned here, it will then go to europe, which is already getting there.

Peace,

V-03

 

Vaderize03, just because the Nazi's where having a holocaust in Germany, doesn't mean we have to join the party here in the U.S.