Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR)

[GuessTheAltAccount]

While I don't think most "life starts at conception" people are acting in bad faith. I do think they could use some science and philosophy education. To be fair, I also think that of a great portion of the rest of humanity could benefit from extra education.

So where were you when other people on your side of the debate were treating it like a proven fact that the were acting in bad faith? How come you didn't call them out on it, then and there?

Technically stem cells are a part of fetal tissue. The umbilical cord and placenta are made by the oocyte. Not the mum. If you harvest stem cells from a person, they have been fetus as well. If "life" and "personhood" would start at conception, an adult would also still be a fetus.

I wasn't referring to placental and cord blood stem cells. I was referring to embryonic stem cells.

[Deacarsia]

Speaking as a pro-life advocate myself, the issue with embryonic stem cells in medicine is that they are harvested from the corpse of an aborted baby.

Thus, I cannot support their usage, though I do support the medical usage of adult stem cells, which can be collected without murdering anyone.

[Albrenia]

I wouldn't question the sincerity of someone who supports both the death penalty and abortion rights since those two opinions are consistent - namely that sometimes it's acceptable to destroy a life under certain circumstances.

Unless they gave me reason to question their beliefs anyway, since not everyone holds certain viewpoints for the same reason.

[Deacarsia]

I wouldn't question the sincerity of someone who supports both the death penalty and abortion rights since those two opinions are consistent - namely that sometimes it's acceptable to destroy a life under certain circumstances.

Unless they gave me reason to question their beliefs anyway, since not everyone holds certain viewpoints for the same reason.

The reason why the death penalty is consistent with the pro-life position is that it is a punishment for a crime, whereas abortion kills an innocent human being.

I myself once thought that they were inconsistent, but I since have changed my mind due to reasoning similar to this.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Speaking as a pro-life advocate myself, the issue with embryonic stem cells in medicine is that they are harvested from the corpse of an aborted baby.

So, if, let's say, they were not in fact "harvested from the corpse of an aborted baby" but were in fact taken from cloned embryos or the unused ones from in vitro fertilizations, would you be okay with it then?

Thus, I cannot support their usage, though I do support the medical usage of adult stem cells, which can be collected without murdering anyone.

They're good for research, but for different kinds of research than embryonic.

Do you buy into the "adult stem cell research works and embryonic stem cell research doesn't" talking point? If so, why? If not, how come you don't call other opponents of embryonic stem cell research out on it?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I wouldn't question the sincerity of someone who supports both the death penalty and abortion rights since those two opinions are consistent - namely that sometimes it's acceptable to destroy a life under certain circumstances.

Unless they gave me reason to question their beliefs anyway, since not everyone holds certain viewpoints for the same reason.

The reason why the death penalty is consistent with the pro-life position is that it is a punishment for a crime, whereas abortion kills an innocent human being.

I myself once thought that they were inconsistent, but I since have changed my mind due to reasoning similar to this.

Yeah, I've never considered a fetus a person either, but the idea that it's "hypocrisy" is BS and I usually call it out.

People mistake me for an abortion-criminalizer when they do, but oh well. It makes stupid people easier to identify. ^_^

[Deacarsia]

So, if, let's say, they were not in fact "harvested from the corpse of an aborted baby" but were in fact taken from cloned embryos or the unused ones from in vitro fertilizations, would you be okay with it then?

I would not support with either of those two ideas. I do not agree with either human cloning or in vitro fertilization. Furthermore, putting this aside, a cloned embryo still is a person, since life begins at conception, regardless of whether it is natural or artificial.

They're good for research, but for different kinds of research than embryonic.

Do you buy into the "adult stem cell research works and embryonic stem cell research doesn't" talking point? If so, why? If not, how come you don't call other opponents of embryonic stem cell research out on it?

I do not know enough about stem cells to make a decisive judgment about their efficacy in research.

By the way, thank you for being so civil. Oftentimes people are downright nasty, and I appreciate your questions.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I would not support with either of those two ideas. I do not agree with either human cloning or in vitro fertilization. Furthermore, putting this aside, a cloned embryo still is a person, since life begins at conception, regardless of whether it is natural or artificial.

So to what do you attribute the fact that there are more people opposed to embryonic stem cell research than there are opposed to in vitro fertilization?

I do not know enough about stem cells to make a decisive judgment about their efficacy in research.

Fair enough, but when in doubt you should ideally be skeptical of questionable arguments, even if they're made by people on your side.

By the way, thank you for being so civil. Oftentimes people are downright nasty, and I appreciate your questions.

Eh, I'm civil toward civil people, and nasty toward nasty people. That's just the way I am.

[Albrenia]

I wouldn't question the sincerity of someone who supports both the death penalty and abortion rights since those two opinions are consistent - namely that sometimes it's acceptable to destroy a life under certain circumstances.

Unless they gave me reason to question their beliefs anyway, since not everyone holds certain viewpoints for the same reason.

The reason why the death penalty is consistent with the pro-life position is that it is a punishment for a crime, whereas abortion kills an innocent human being.

I myself once thought that they were inconsistent, but I since have changed my mind due to reasoning similar to this.

If the destruction of life is possible to be justified (as in if the life belongs to a criminal, for example) would that also mean you would support abortion in certain circumstances where the birth would end only in danger for the mother and death to the infant?

[Deacarsia]

So to what do you attribute the fact that there are more people opposed to embryonic stem cell research than there are opposed to in vitro fertilization?

I have not the slightest clue.

Fair enough, but when in doubt you should ideally be skeptical of questionable arguments, even if they're made by people on your side.

Of course. Falsehoods do nothing to support an argument, and they even can undermine credibility for an otherwise worthy cause.

Eh, I'm civil toward civil people, and nasty toward nasty people. That's just the way I am.

Still, thank you.

[Deacarsia]

If the destruction of life is possible to be justified (as in if the life belongs to a criminal, for example) would that also mean you would support abortion in certain circumstances where the birth would end only in danger for the mother and death to the infant?

No, I would not support this. Furthermore, most abortions in fact are not of this type, and this usually is just a way to try to justify all other abortions (I am not speaking about you specifically, but just from my experience in general).

The destruction of life can be justified if the person in question is guilty of some crime, as in the case of the death penalty, but an unborn child always is an innocent life, and thus this life cannot be destroyed.

However, I would not necessarily be opposed to a life-saving operation that potentially could result in the death of either the mother or the child (for example, the removal of a fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy), if the sole intent of the action is to try to save one or both lives, not to destroy either one.

[Albrenia]

If the destruction of life is possible to be justified (as in if the life belongs to a criminal, for example) would that also mean you would support abortion in certain circumstances where the birth would end only in danger for the mother and death to the infant?

No, I would not support this. Furthermore, most abortions in fact are not of this type, and this usually is just a way to try to justify all other abortions (I am not speaking about you specifically, but just from my experience in general).

The destruction of life can be justified if the person in question is guilty of some crime, as in the case of the death penalty, but an unborn child always is an innocent life, and thus this life cannot be destroyed.

However, I would not necessarily be opposed to a life-saving operation that potentially could result in the death of either the mother or the child (for example, the removal of a fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy), if the sole intent of the action is to try to save one or both lives, not to destroy either one.

Fair enough, thank you for your answer. Quite a reasonable position.

If guilt is the sole excuse for ending life, does that mean you would not pull the lever in the Trolley Question? That being, if faced with a choice of doing nothing and 5 people dying, or pulling a switch to save those people at the expense of a single other person's life.

This will be my last question to you, I'm just trying to take advantage of an abortion discussion where we're not all calling each other names.

[Resilient Acceleration]

In the end, the ethicality of ESCR is based on personal beliefs, with empiric reality being of little use to either side. And a very large portion of those involved in the issue—both the scientific community and the tech sector; at least, based on what I see online—do view humans (and especially embryos) as nothing more than complex molecular structures that emerged from Darwinian evolution. So what's ethical or not practically depends on the local culture and social norms that happens to exist in the area, with public opinion being alterable through campaigns and other PR efforts. If the public is fine about this issue, then there's really no reason not to cut down the restrictive red tapes and harness the incredible potentials this field have for civilization.

[Thepeopl]

While I don't think most "life starts at conception" people are acting in bad faith. I do think they could use some science and philosophy education. To be fair, I also think that of a great portion of the rest of humanity could benefit from extra education.

So where were you when other people on your side of the debate were treating it like a proven fact that the were acting in bad faith? How come you didn't call them out on it, then and there?

Because I do have a life outside of NationStates. I don't "need to correct" every wrong in the internet.
I don't read everything on nationstates. And I am definitely pro choice, pro euthanasia and pro welfare. I'll point out to "pro life, life starts at conception" how unattainable that stance is. By pointing them to Blighted ovum.

Technically stem cells are a part of fetal tissue. The umbilical cord and placenta are made by the oocyte. Not the mum. If you harvest stem cells from a person, they have been fetus as well. If "life" and "personhood" would start at conception, an adult would also still be a fetus.

I wasn't referring to placental and cord blood stem cells. I was referring to embryonic stem cells.

Well, if life starts at conception, embryo isn't different than fetus nor adult.

[Resilient Acceleration]

Also, we should remember that tangible personal, economic, and societal benefits almost always overpower more abstract philosophical debates. 91% of fetuses in the UK are already immediately aborted upon conclusive diagnosis of Down syndrome. Embryos, from a human psychological perspective, are far less humanoid in physical form than fetuses, so there's very little reason not to conclude that ESCR researches will "prevail" in the long run.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Because I do have a life outside of NationStates. I don't "need to correct" every wrong in the internet.

Well, that still leaves the question of what you choose to correct and choose not to. You corrected the other side of this on biology. You chose not to correct your own on the mindset of their critics. Are you implying it's acceptable to go along with faulty reasoning just because your own side is the one invoking it?

Well, if life starts at conception, embryo isn't different than fetus nor adult.

That's not the point. Embryonic stem cell research is a phrase that very specifically refers to a form of fetuses that does not, in fact, involve aborted fetuses. It is more widely opposed than IVF, but less so than fetal tissue research. Maybe they would've opposed it even if they didn't get it mixed up with the latter, but when lives are on the line, can we really afford to take that chance?

[Thepeopl]

Because I do have a life outside of NationStates. I don't "need to correct" every wrong in the internet.

Well, that still leaves the question of what you choose to correct and choose not to. You corrected the other side of this on biology. You chose not to correct your own on the mindset of their critics. Are you implying it's acceptable to go along with faulty reasoning just because your own side is the one invoking it?

As I already said: I don't read everything on nation states. So it probably has been skipped by me.

I'll point out mistakes when I spot them. It is possible that I see less mistakes from "pro choice" posters because I do agree with most of their points so I skim more. If I disagree with someone, I'll dissect their post to be sure I read things as the were meant.

Well, if life starts at conception, embryo isn't different than fetus nor adult.

That's not the point. Embryonic stem cell research is a phrase that very specifically refers to a form of fetuses that does not, in fact, involve aborted fetuses. It is more widely opposed than IVF, but less so than fetal tissue research. Maybe they would've opposed it even if they didn't get it mixed up with the latter, but when lives are on the line, can we really afford to take that chance?

Why isn't it the same?
If life is sacred from conception, it really doesn't matter in what stage one harvests the stem cells. From a biological point of view, cells are immortal. So, cells taken from the pre embryonic state, from the fetus or from an adult are all "fetal". Embryo have the potential to become fetus, adults have been fetus.

[Deacarsia]

Fair enough, thank you for your answer. Quite a reasonable position.

If guilt is the sole excuse for ending life, does that mean you would not pull the lever in the Trolley Question? That being, if faced with a choice of doing nothing and 5 people dying, or pulling a switch to save those people at the expense of a single other person's life.

This will be my last question to you, I'm just trying to take advantage of an abortion discussion where we're not all calling each other names.

The Trolley Question is a very interesting one that I often have pondered. I indeed am inclined not to pull the lever, but I understand the arguments for both sides. I think that it is immoral to use another person as an instrument, especially an unwilling or unwitting one.

Thank you also for you civility. It is quite refreshing to have a civil dialogue instead of a yelling match, and please never hesistate to ask me any questions.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Why isn't it the same?
If life is sacred from conception, it really doesn't matter in what stage one harvests the stem cells. From a biological point of view, cells are immortal. So, cells taken from the pre embryonic state, from the fetus or from an adult are all "fetal". Embryo have the potential to become fetus, adults have been fetus.

I presume you meant "immoral"?

Also, the category of stem cell research referred to as "embryonic" by definition comes from blastocysts 5 or fewer days old. It is entirely distinct from the progenitor cell research people refer to when they refer to cells from aborted fetuses.

You could argue they shouldn't be morally distinct (though I get why people think we should err on the side of "caution" with uncertainty on timing of fetal sentience even if I don't agree with them, and obviously it's sincere or people would be just as opposed to ESCR and/or IVF as to fetal tissue research and/or abortion) but that doesn't change the definitions of the terms involved.

[Thepeopl]

Why isn't it the same?
If life is sacred from conception, it really doesn't matter in what stage one harvests the stem cells. From a biological point of view, cells are immortal. So, cells taken from the pre embryonic state, from the fetus or from an adult are all "fetal". Embryo have the potential to become fetus, adults have been fetus.

I presume you meant "immoral"?

Also, the category of stem cell research referred to as "embryonic" by definition comes from blastocysts 5 or fewer days old. It is entirely distinct from the progenitor cell research people refer to when they refer to cells from aborted fetuses.

You could argue they shouldn't be morally distinct (though I get why people think we should err on the side of "caution" with uncertainty on timing of fetal sentience even if I don't agree with them, and obviously it's sincere or people would be just as opposed to ESCR and/or IVF as to fetal tissue research and/or abortion) but that doesn't change the definitions of the terms involved.

No, I meant "immortal". Cells are immortal. They do have a "self destruct sequence" but if the environment doesn't require it, it will not be activated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01387-z

Scientists want to study after 14 days as well. Slippery slope anyone?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I presume you meant "immoral"?

Also, the category of stem cell research referred to as "embryonic" by definition comes from blastocysts 5 or fewer days old. It is entirely distinct from the progenitor cell research people refer to when they refer to cells from aborted fetuses.

You could argue they shouldn't be morally distinct (though I get why people think we should err on the side of "caution" with uncertainty on timing of fetal sentience even if I don't agree with them, and obviously it's sincere or people would be just as opposed to ESCR and/or IVF as to fetal tissue research and/or abortion) but that doesn't change the definitions of the terms involved.

No, I meant "immortal". Cells are immortal. They do have a "self destruct sequence" but if the environment doesn't require it, it will not be activated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01387-z

Scientists want to study after 14 days as well. Slippery slope anyone?

Eh, maybe, maybe not. I'd still draw the line at proven sentience, not some zygote that for all intents and purposes is equivalent to not having been conceived in the first place.

Still, I stand corrected, my own source was out of date. On the other hand, even what you refer to is not to be mixed up with fetal tissue research.