Golden Sun Syndicate Forums: Golden Sun Syndicate Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Stemcell Research - Is The Ban Fair? (U.S.) Debate Topic

#1   TobiasMar 

  • Disciple
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
    • Group: Members
    • Posts: 2,064
    • Joined: 11-February 04
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:Atlanta, GA, USA
    • Interests:Computers and anything science-related
    • AKA Gimli the Great

      Posted 01 March 2005 - 02:47 PM

    Well, what do you think of Bush's ban on Stemcell Research? Here's my opinion:

    It is NOT fair. At All. Bush's policies get too mixed up with religion. And his Stemcell Research ban is one of them. I hear he banned it because it is wrong, but only at his religious point of view. And Stemcell Research is important in Science. Science is factual, Religion is opinion. And Bush treats it the other way around, but I'm not ganna get into that. Stemcell Research can be used to help repair an error in the body. And its banned for a stupid religious reason. How do you think of this?

    (I know there was a "Stemcell Research - Good Idea" thread before, but this one is different. Its not ONLY that, but its also about why you think the ban is fair/unfair. So please, mods, don't shoot me! i.i)

    #2   Andross 

    • Disciple
    • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
      • Group: Members
      • Posts: 1,643
      • Joined: 06-February 04

      Posted 01 March 2005 - 04:28 PM

      Uh, I don't believe Bush has banned research. He's merely limited funds and resources the gov't provides. Private firms may still pursue stem cell research.

      #3   Platinum Sun 

      • Disciple
      • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
        • Group: Veterans
        • Posts: 1,629
        • Joined: 04-June 04
        • Gender:Male
        • Location:Newport News, VA But not by choice.
        • Interests:Fire, RPGs (the playable kind too), dragon lore, computer games, political satire, watching all you puny mortal humans run around like rats in a maze.

        Posted 01 March 2005 - 04:59 PM

        Absolutely not; the ban denies a crucial source of new medicine only because of a rather superfluous ethical dilemma. The cells are taken from embryos that would otherwise be just left to die or frozen indefinitely.

        #4   TobiasMar 

        • Disciple
        • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
          • Group: Members
          • Posts: 2,064
          • Joined: 11-February 04
          • Gender:Male
          • Location:Atlanta, GA, USA
          • Interests:Computers and anything science-related
          • AKA Gimli the Great

          Posted 01 March 2005 - 06:10 PM

          I know it hasn't been completely "banned" Andross, but its the best way I can word it. But yeah, we NEED Stemcell Research. Without Stemcell research, the low funds, or lack of resources for it, I bet we won't be able to cure AIDS. I get the feeling the cure for it will come out of Stemcell Research.

          #5   Andross 

          • Disciple
          • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
            • Group: Members
            • Posts: 1,643
            • Joined: 06-February 04

            Posted 01 March 2005 - 09:20 PM

            Gimli the Great, on Mar 2 2005, 12:10 AM, said:

            I know it hasn't been completely "banned" Andross, but its the best way I can word it. But yeah, we NEED Stemcell Research. Without Stemcell research, the low funds, or lack of resources for it, I bet we won't be able to cure AIDS. I get the feeling the cure for it will come out of Stemcell Research.

            Gimli, this topic is way beyond your grasp and is only being fueled by your emotion. First of all, embryonic stem cells wouldn't be able to cure AIDs because white blood cells have to be REPLACED. Because these cells would not be replaced, but there would merely be more white blood cells, it's not as if healing would occur; new white blood cells would just become infected as well.

            Recent scientific studies lead me to believe that editing HIV to track down AIDs infected cells may help (scientists have managed to edit HIV into a non-lethal form which tracks down cancer in mice/rats and kills it). In addition, replacement white blood cells could be used. But the idea is speculatory, and I have no idea what complications there would be with killing white blood cells, then trying to replace them as fast as possible.

            Next, stem cell research is NOT banned in any form; banned is no where close to reduced funds, so that's no excuse. Bush denounces it, but he has not interfered drastically. He's just not providing gov't funds. There ARE private institutions which do research and raise enough money. In addition, it's only embryonic stem cell research; adult stem cells can still be used for treatment, and have been used for treatment. There's reason to believe they may be better than embryonic cells, but the field is so new, that it's not entirely known. It's not as if other governments have banned it; scientists still have those resources.

            I wouldn't go into a ranting convulsion over this. I'm only pissed off at the fact that Bush cut funds for the science and research institutions, in general, which are funded by the gov't (redundant, I know, but people are stupid :silence: ). That's the biggest problem, as science and research is what allowed the US to become what it is today. Bush wouldn't have weapons to fight his war without it after all :silence:

            #6   TobiasMar 

            • Disciple
            • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
              • Group: Members
              • Posts: 2,064
              • Joined: 11-February 04
              • Gender:Male
              • Location:Atlanta, GA, USA
              • Interests:Computers and anything science-related
              • AKA Gimli the Great

              Posted 02 March 2005 - 04:53 PM

              Well, true, making cure for AIDS with Stemcell Research would still be hard, but we may succeed one day in a different way. You never know. :ph34r:
              I also hear that the Republican governer of California (I forget his name) actually agrees that Stemcell Reasearch funds should be restored. Well, at least he has common sense and doesn't get mixed up with politics and religion!

              #7   Tachyon360 

              • Slayer
              • PipPipPipPipPip
                • Group: Members
                • Posts: 394
                • Joined: 16-August 04

                Posted 02 March 2005 - 05:28 PM

                You forgot Arnold Schwartzenegger? The very symbol of masculinity in the United States? Regardless, he holds rather liberal morals (though he's a fiscal conservative).

                Anyway, religion does not really come into play here. The only real controversy is about when a human life is viable and valuable. Most conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, believe that it's at conception. Liberals are a mixed bag, usually ranging from late-embryo/early-fetus to birth. Both sides of the issue are based on personal belief.

                The fact that religion contributes to one's beliefs is irrelevent. How are the views of, say, a Catholic preist any less valuable than that of a secularist philosopher? They're not; a belief is a belief, regardless of source. Religion is fair game anywhere.

                Now, the point you're missing is that Bush, as well as millions of other people, believe that embryonic stem cell research is a terrible waste of human life. Rather than starting an outright uproar, Bush merely cut government funding and left it mostly to the private sector. There's practically nobody out there that argues against adult stem cell research.

                And quit pushing your ignorance about AIDS. It's not a matter of difficulty. It's a matter of the nature of disease itself. Stem cells cannot rid the body of the HIV virus. They might increase the immune system's health temporarily, but they won't do crap in the long run. Stem cells can, however, restore marrow and revitalize immune response after high-dose chemotherapy, which causes a sort of AIDS-like condition. Embronic stem cells, however, are useless in every practical sense, especially considering that they tend not to survive in vivo and they're downright difficult to culture in any useful amount. Hospitals use marrow stem cells from either the patient (taken prior to the chemo) or from a donor (in the case of certain cancers) to regrow the marrow.

                As Andross put so elegantly, "this topic is way beyond your grasp and is only being fueled by your emotion."


                Page 1 of 1
                • You cannot start a new topic
                • You cannot reply to this topic