The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In the last few years Scientists have made a tremendous breakthrough, due to the identification of "stem" cells, which have the ability to become any type of other cell in the human body. Thus the cell can become part of an internal organ, muscle tissue, blood and so on. The (theoretical)implications of the research are phenomenal; new organs could be constructedd without the need for cloning (or transplants), muscle tissue could be repaired and regrown, diseases eradicated through treatment at a cellular level. If we gain the ability to control/influence how these cells become a different type of cell (like a cell that forms part of a kidney for example) and understand what drives/decided this process, we'd have the neccessary knowledge to do some remarkable and desirable things.
However there is a catch. Scientists don't have many stem cells with which to undertake their research with. Surprising considering what the potential outcome of any such research could be but not so surprising when you find out how stem cells are harvested and obtained. These cells are only present within a human body, very early in its development. This makes sense of course because they become the cells that form our organs and so on. They make us, us. So the only way to get stem cells for research purposes is from an aborted foetus.
Thus stem cell research is proving controversial and there is moral dilemma to overcome. It is universally agreed that if foetuses where aborted for the sole reason to provide stem cells for research purposes, this would be totally unacceptable. However it is argued that taking the stem cells from foetuses aborted for the sort of reasons that abortions take place is acceptable; assuming that full consent is given. Most women however are, understandably, reticent to do so. I'm not an expert on the harvesting procedure (it all sounds horribly clinical) but the sooner it can take place the better. Thus a decision has to be obtained in a relatively short time frame. Not an ideal scenario. Also should we be undertaking this sort of research anyway?
I'm biased in so much as I have a vested interest in such research becoming a success. Someone I know who is diabetic also has kidneys which are failing. I'd give them one of mine without hesitation but because the recipient is diabetic there is no chance of the donor kidney being accepted by the host. Thus when the kidneys fail there is currently nothing that can be done. However if research led to the ability to repair the kidneys, through the use of modified stem cells, I would be delighted. Others might not be, simply because they have strong objections to the manner of research that allowed this. I can understand this.
So stem cell research. Something to be encouraged, tolerated or discouraged?
However there is a catch. Scientists don't have many stem cells with which to undertake their research with. Surprising considering what the potential outcome of any such research could be but not so surprising when you find out how stem cells are harvested and obtained. These cells are only present within a human body, very early in its development. This makes sense of course because they become the cells that form our organs and so on. They make us, us. So the only way to get stem cells for research purposes is from an aborted foetus.
Thus stem cell research is proving controversial and there is moral dilemma to overcome. It is universally agreed that if foetuses where aborted for the sole reason to provide stem cells for research purposes, this would be totally unacceptable. However it is argued that taking the stem cells from foetuses aborted for the sort of reasons that abortions take place is acceptable; assuming that full consent is given. Most women however are, understandably, reticent to do so. I'm not an expert on the harvesting procedure (it all sounds horribly clinical) but the sooner it can take place the better. Thus a decision has to be obtained in a relatively short time frame. Not an ideal scenario. Also should we be undertaking this sort of research anyway?
I'm biased in so much as I have a vested interest in such research becoming a success. Someone I know who is diabetic also has kidneys which are failing. I'd give them one of mine without hesitation but because the recipient is diabetic there is no chance of the donor kidney being accepted by the host. Thus when the kidneys fail there is currently nothing that can be done. However if research led to the ability to repair the kidneys, through the use of modified stem cells, I would be delighted. Others might not be, simply because they have strong objections to the manner of research that allowed this. I can understand this.
So stem cell research. Something to be encouraged, tolerated or discouraged?
I agree with abortion, and am lucky enough to have a partner that agrees too - as long as it's done early enough. Unprepared parents trying to raise a child, when they've done nothing with their lives? That doesn't bode well for anyone, especially the kid. I see it with my neighbours. Young couple, clearly hate their kid, and now they're trapped in a life of picking up after it for the next 15-20 years. Gutted.
Is this the same research that is being done with Placentas. I donated a placenta with my last child and was appauled because it was a weekend and they could not use it. If they did things properly they wouldn't need to use embreos. Saying that if I was to have a miscarriage I would consider It was used Just like organ donation. But I have never been in that situation and dont actually know how I would react. If it was going to save lives then yes. Abortion is a different matter. That babys life was taken from it. It should not be used as a commodity. It all comes down to personal ethics.
Based on the little I know, encouraged, but in deference to the fact that this is an emotive topic, very heavily monitored.
Though in my opinion, people getting het up about stem cells are just getting their proverbials in a twist over a type of cell like any other. One may as well march for the right of skin cells to develop into viable people....
Though in my opinion, people getting het up about stem cells are just getting their proverbials in a twist over a type of cell like any other. One may as well march for the right of skin cells to develop into viable people....
As long as no monkeys are hurt, I'm for anything!
In the last few years Scientists have made a tremendous breakthrough, due to the identification of "stem" cells, which have the ability to become any type of other cell in the human body. Thus the cell can become part of an internal organ, muscle tissue, blood and so on. The (theoretical)implications of the research are phenomenal; new organs could be constructedd without the need for cloning (or transplants), muscle tissue could be repaired and regrown, diseases eradicated through treatment at a cellular level. If we gain the ability to control/influence how these cells become a different type of cell (like a cell that forms part of a kidney for example) and understand what drives/decided this process, we'd have the neccessary knowledge to do some remarkable and desirable things.
However there is a catch. Scientists don't have many stem cells with which to undertake their research with. Surprising considering what the potential outcome of any such research could be but not so surprising when you find out how stem cells are harvested and obtained. These cells are only present within a human body, very early in its development. This makes sense of course because they become the cells that form our organs and so on. They make us, us. So the only way to get stem cells for research purposes is from an aborted foetus.
Thus stem cell research is proving controversial and there is moral dilemma to overcome. It is universally agreed that if foetuses where aborted for the sole reason to provide stem cells for research purposes, this would be totally unacceptable. However it is argued that taking the stem cells from foetuses aborted for the sort of reasons that abortions take place is acceptable; assuming that full consent is given. Most women however are, understandably, reticent to do so. I'm not an expert on the harvesting procedure (it all sounds horribly clinical) but the sooner it can take place the better. Thus a decision has to be obtained in a relatively short time frame. Not an ideal scenario. Also should we be undertaking this sort of research anyway?
I'm biased in so much as I have a vested interest in such research becoming a success. Someone I know who is diabetic also has kidneys which are failing. I'd give them one of mine without hesitation but because the recipient is diabetic there is no chance of the donor kidney being accepted by the host. Thus when the kidneys fail there is currently nothing that can be done. However if research led to the ability to repair the kidneys, through the use of modified stem cells, I would be delighted. Others might not be, simply because they have strong objections to the manner of research that allowed this. I can understand this.
So stem cell research. Something to be encouraged, tolerated or discouraged?
However there is a catch. Scientists don't have many stem cells with which to undertake their research with. Surprising considering what the potential outcome of any such research could be but not so surprising when you find out how stem cells are harvested and obtained. These cells are only present within a human body, very early in its development. This makes sense of course because they become the cells that form our organs and so on. They make us, us. So the only way to get stem cells for research purposes is from an aborted foetus.
Thus stem cell research is proving controversial and there is moral dilemma to overcome. It is universally agreed that if foetuses where aborted for the sole reason to provide stem cells for research purposes, this would be totally unacceptable. However it is argued that taking the stem cells from foetuses aborted for the sort of reasons that abortions take place is acceptable; assuming that full consent is given. Most women however are, understandably, reticent to do so. I'm not an expert on the harvesting procedure (it all sounds horribly clinical) but the sooner it can take place the better. Thus a decision has to be obtained in a relatively short time frame. Not an ideal scenario. Also should we be undertaking this sort of research anyway?
I'm biased in so much as I have a vested interest in such research becoming a success. Someone I know who is diabetic also has kidneys which are failing. I'd give them one of mine without hesitation but because the recipient is diabetic there is no chance of the donor kidney being accepted by the host. Thus when the kidneys fail there is currently nothing that can be done. However if research led to the ability to repair the kidneys, through the use of modified stem cells, I would be delighted. Others might not be, simply because they have strong objections to the manner of research that allowed this. I can understand this.
So stem cell research. Something to be encouraged, tolerated or discouraged?