But you know.....Stem Cells are unethical

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-11/cure-aids

Yes, if you completely remove someone's immune system and replace it with a new one, that will normally cure pretty much any immune-related disease they have. Or kill them. This will never be a viable treatment strategy for AIDS. For one thing, most AIDS cases are in impoverished sub-Saharan Africa. They can barely afford food, let alone exorbitantly expensive bone marrow transplants. If the AIDS epidemic is ever brought under control, it will be through the development and administration of an effective vaccine. All the people who are already HIV+ today are pretty much screwed.

stem cell research is still in its infancy but they used the blood stem cells of people born immune so if America and the UN allowed stem cell research it would allow humanity to establish a viable cure widely available to the people in, with the current rate of technological advancement, maybe 40-50 years i would guess which sounds pretty accurate to transhumanists, most of which are scientists, im a big supporter of transhumanism and stem cell research and cloning and anything that can increase human advancement in life, if we wait for a God to cure us of diseases humanity will die out its up to us to carve our future, happiness, and survival as a species

In 40-50 years with a lot less money we can develop a vaccine and deliver it cheaply to the entire African continent. Problem solved. No one who is HIV+ today is going to live 50 years to wait for a cure anyways, so a vaccine to prevent AIDS claiming any additional lives is the best bet.

How exactly would you develop a vaccine to a disease that targets the immunologic system though? I think we are still yet to see whether that's possible at all.

Things that are expensive now may become less expensive with time. I guess though that ultimately, the solution is prevention. AIDS is actually transmittable only in ways that are not necessary for your functioning. You don't need to have unprotected sex with people you don't know well enough to tell if they have AIDS or not, and you don't need to inject stuff into your body with a needle that was not sterilized. So, education is most likely the only and the most effective way.

Sure, condoms are only 97% effective, but so are (roughly) vaccines. Eventually the usage of condoms will reduce transmission of AIDS well enough that it will start leaving whole countries. Assuming people are educated enough and we destroy the religious and conservative barriers against condoms.

One of my wildest, pollyanna fantasies is that within 70 years education will be so widespread and effective in sub-Saharan Africa that people realize what the Christian missionaires have done to them.

Considering the practice of stoning adulterers and executing gays I agree it is a wild fantasy. It is quite evident the vicious and basically stupid people control the world and change seems unlikely.

I give up. I can no longer.

Neither stem cells nor epithelial cells can be ethical or unethical.

Some uses - and some users - of stem cells and epithelial cells and other living tissues are unethical. Some are perfectly ethical.

It is inappropriate - though not necessarily unethical - to apply objections to certain work with fetal stem cells to all stem cell research or manipulation.

You know there are two ways of getting stem cells, the way Liberals and pro-Abortion nuts favor is from embryos and is extremely unethical. The way pro-lifers and Conservatives favor is stem cells obtained from umbilical cords, skin cells, etc. You don't need embryos to get stem cells, so this is a false argument in an attempt to justify immoral behavior.

There are innumerable embryos tossed in the trash daily from in vitro fertilization. To object to their being put to use is not merely insane, it is intensely stupid. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Why do you think I'm also against invitro fertilization? If there wasn't invitro fertilization, there wouldn't be the moral quandry of embryos thrown in trash now would there. There are thousands to millions of children that need a home, if you can't get a kid via normal means how about the novel concept of adoption.

You are telling people how and why and when to reproduce. Communist China does that all the time and you, frankly, do not seem to have communist tendencies. But perhaps some other form of totalitarianism appeals to you.
The orphan problem is a totally separate issue.

No, I'm saying that the entire situation of invitro fertilization is unethical, I didn't say they can't try to have kids, I'm say that the means you listed causes too many other problems and devalues human life to a commodity.

Quite a few people are quite happy with it. I can't see any human devaluation unless you consider every human reproductive cell a full human which is also quite insane.

human life is a commodity. It is bought and sold everywhere, everyday.

ruveyn

Perhaps you do not understand the science behind all this. I am a bio major, so let me fill you in: Stem cells obtained from adults, or even from umbilical cords, are highly limited in what they can do and what research they will advance because they are not as able to differentiate as fetal stem cells. It is possible to obtain stem cells without using embryos, but that doesn't mean productive stem cell research can be carried out. You need pluripotent stem cells (which are derived from an embryo) to see the full capabilities. Induced Pluripotent stem cells show some promise, but they are still not the same.

You already claimed to oppose IVF, so at least you are consistent in your moral opposition to fetal stem cell research. I disagree with your stance, but I can at least have some respect for the consistency you've managed, unlike Bush whose policies required embryos to be thrown in the trash rather than used to save lives.