I agree with your statement of stem cell research not being controlled, regardless of the ethics of the situation. It is the nature of science to progress, and for people to progress with it - we've started down this path, and controversial or not, it has piqued a lot of interest. People will follow it regardless. It does have a lot of potential in medicine though, and indeed if further break throughs are made, I'm sure we'll see it applied worldwide over a period - regardless of whether the countries have been directly involved in that calibre of research or not. If it saves lives people often turn the other cheek. But we have a ways to go yet, so who knows when these things will actually be upon us?
So creating embryos in a petri dish...well, if they'd have been implanted they would have grown into something, but if they are past the time period for implantation...sure. If that makes any sense.
That does make sense, but just for clarification - you're saying that you have less of a problem with harvesting stem cells from laboratory created embryos /beyond/ the point where they should have been implanted, and thus been able to develop? As long as it's beyond that point? For some reason I find that an interesting stance - not a bad one.. it just seems to contrast a little with what you stated above that.
I think that when they kill life or create life to be used it's not good. I think that anything that has the potential to be a life and is not given the right to live is unethical.
Personally, I would have seen creating an embryo as creating a life - we consider single cells 'living things' as opposed to viruses, which are seen as ambiguous. But I understand your point as well, being multicellular organisms - we need a lot more than a cell or two to survive. But even so, an embryo does still have the potential to develop into that 'more', and we are denying it that by not implanting it and using its cells elsewhere. Humm.. I personally don't have an issue with this process, but I can certainly see why one would. I'm just a little confused by your stance, I suppose. Don't feel you have to clarify it though, it does make sense. My thinking is just a little different and as such, I don't see it in quite the same way. XD
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 04:10 am (UTC)So creating embryos in a petri dish...well, if they'd have been implanted they would have grown into something, but if they are past the time period for implantation...sure. If that makes any sense.
That does make sense, but just for clarification - you're saying that you have less of a problem with harvesting stem cells from laboratory created embryos /beyond/ the point where they should have been implanted, and thus been able to develop? As long as it's beyond that point? For some reason I find that an interesting stance - not a bad one.. it just seems to contrast a little with what you stated above that.
I think that when they kill life or create life to be used it's not good. I think that anything that has the potential to be a life and is not given the right to live is unethical.
Personally, I would have seen creating an embryo as creating a life - we consider single cells 'living things' as opposed to viruses, which are seen as ambiguous. But I understand your point as well, being multicellular organisms - we need a lot more than a cell or two to survive. But even so, an embryo does still have the potential to develop into that 'more', and we are denying it that by not implanting it and using its cells elsewhere. Humm.. I personally don't have an issue with this process, but I can certainly see why one would. I'm just a little confused by your stance, I suppose. Don't feel you have to clarify it though, it does make sense. My thinking is just a little different and as such, I don't see it in quite the same way. XD