Should Embryonic Stem Cell usage and research be banned? [Spartan90 vs Silver Guard]

[Spartan90]

Topic: Should Embryonic Stem Cell usage and research be banned?
Details: The extraction of embryonic stem cells essentially destroys the embryo. Is this morally correct? Should we have the right to kill an embryo to save or help someone?
Postion: I am for banning it.

I will post my opening statement later on today. Sorry Silver Guard, I'm at work right now, so you'll hear from me soon

Other than that, you can post an opening statement..

[Spartan90]

Okay, this is my first debate, so please forgive my lack of etiquette when it comes to the way I post. Let me know if you have any problems. Anyway, I wish Silver Guard the best of luck, but even more luck to me -- I hear he's very good at this debating fad...

--

Stem Cell research is a relatively new thing. In theory, it sounds like an excellent idea. One can harvest these Stem Cells to replace damaged cells lost in devastating diseases such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes and cancer. This could even be the start of a cure for these diseases.

There are certain aspects of this new science that are very controversial - particularly the exploitation of human stem cells derived from either embryos or fetuses. Many over the world, and me personally, believe that the harvesting of stem cells at the expense of an embryo shows a complete and horrible disregard for human life. On top of this, it is even more ethically wrong as you are sacraficing a life to save, or help yourself.

How disgusting is it getting that the scientific field resorts to killing unborn children to experiment on stem cell research in the hope that one day it can help cure some diseases? Yes, it is extrememly unfortunate to have Parkinson's, diabetes or cancer (among others), but does that give you the right to steal an unborn child's life just to selfishly help yourself?

I believe research into stem cell usage should completely boycott harvesting those from embryos, and focus on other areas that don't include murder.

--

Silver Guard, this is probably a very quick first post, I know. Sorry, I'm off to bed now, I'll gladly await your rebuttal which will probably smash my opening statement to pieces Enjoy the long weekend!

[Silver Guard]

Ok, this will start with an opening statment and follow with a rebuttal of that of Spartan90

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stem cells are possibly the most important medical discovery in the last half a century and have the most untapped potential of perhaps any scientific move in that time. Stem cells are amazing things, they are capable of forming pretty much any specific cell in the human body, through differentiation. Also, due to almost unlimited self-replication, they can be used on much larger scales then just a single-cell basis, forming entire tissues if neccessary.

Medically, they are said to be able to cure physical trauma, degenerative conditions, and genetic diseases, as well as extensive tissue damage.

This could potentially mean an end to suffering due to cystic fibrosis, end Alzeimers disease and form a basis for which new tissue could be formed. Being a saving grace for burn victims, those paralyzed due to spinal injuries and to back up important internal organs.

However this is not what is important to the critic of stem cell research, the untapped potential to cure some of the most destructive and woe-causing afflictions in the history of mankind. No, what they are concerned about, are the "embryos" they come from.

Let me make this very clear, there are several stages in human development, which can mainly be split into the embryonic and fetal stages. Stem cell research strictly applies to the embrionic. However, when critics think of embryos, they think of minature humans curled up in the human womb, ready to emerge at any moment. Stem cells are all taken at the stage of blastocyst.

What is a blastocyst? It is a minute collection of undifferntiated cells, which isn't even in the womb yet! It is before the development of any organs, any form of nerval or perceptual system. Before even the cells are formed that will eventually make up these systems. It is formed of 70-100 cells. Let us put this in perspective a little. Between 200 and 500 million sperm are released at the point of ejaculation. That's a factor of 2-5million times more cells, and 1-2.5million times more genetic material then in any blastocyst. Yes, that's how much potential humanity you kill with every moment of spilled seed.

But that is not all, every time you scratch your skin you destroy thousands of skin cells. In the age of modern science every single last one of these cells is a potential human through the technology of cloning. Everytime you scratch your arm you are killing a factor of 100 more possible humans then in every blastocyst removed for stem cells. The destruction of potential humanity, is not really an issue.

Others will persist and say only natural fertilisation leads to potential humanity, at least on an ethical basis. Yes, this is true. However, a quarter of pregancies end by the first six weeks in spontaneous miscarriage. Another 10% are miscarried after this point. This means that every blastocyst taken for stem cell research has a third chance of being miscarried even without human intervention.

The case for the humanity of the blastocyst is simply unreasonable, and more then that, inhumane. With the vast potential for stem cells in the future, and no alternative nearly as successful, embryonic stem cells are simply the greatest potential breakthrough in medicine to come this century.

----

Spartan90: Your chief mistake in your opening post is the use of the emotive word "child". Technically, a child is only between the point of birth and maturity. There is no such thing as an unborn child, only an unborn human, or person. And it would be far fetched to call such a thing as a clump of 70-100 cells a person. You have more cells in an acne spot.

[Spartan90]

Good points Silver Guard, looking forward to this debate Am I to post a rebuttal to your post, or have you got more to come?

[Silver Guard]

Nope, that's the full post, I'll try not to post in sections, go ahead with your rebuttal.

Try and stay away from quotes, or keep them at a minimum, it's best to have posts as a continuous "letter" type as one argument, rather then many small arguments.

[Spartan90]

Cheers for the advice Silver Guard. Continuing...

--

I agree with you - the usage of embryonic stem cells has the potential for miraculous achievements. Nevetheless, the downsides of this controversy outweigh the positives.

You make the point that skin cells and ejaculation that isn't used for reproductive purposes is the same as killing an embryo - in that both have the potential to becoming a human life, with skin cells and sperm far outweighing a blastocyst. This is where I'll respectfully disagree with you. Sperm cant be viewed as a future human life, yes. Skin cells that are scratched off can become future humans from cloning, yes. The keyword here is 'future'. Cells from semen and skin, etc are not a human life! An embryo is! From the moment of conception, the embryo is living, the embryo is a human. Add them two together - the embryo is a 'human life', sperm and skin cells are not.

Would you morally destroy an embryo to save your life? Right now you most probably will say yes. So let me put it different: Would you expect a baby to take a bullet for you so you can live? Ethically, your conscience would say no. So is there really a difference between an embryo and a baby? The only significant difference is that one is inside the mother, the other is out. Just because the blastocyst isn't in the womb yet, it does not mean it isn't a life. Once more, I'll repeat the main point of my rebuttal - it becomes a life straight from conception.

On a side note, is it really true that one third of pregnancies result in a miscarriage? That seems outrageously high...

--

Your turn Silver Guard, starting to enjoy this now Enjoy the long weekend my friend!

[Silver Guard]

I'm on holiday, all the long weekend does for me is mean more people are busy and more shops are closed! Means I have more time on my hands however.

----------

As to your sidenote, yes, over a third. However, the majority of these (two thirds) occur within the first six weeks, which would only show due to a late menstruation at most, and so the pregnancies in these cases go almost completely unnoticed. With your definition of human, this human has lived and died without even being noticed.

On your chief point, an embryo is human from conception, you also made another point. It is "alive". It must be reminded that almost all cells are alive. Even if red blood cells are only in the loosest of senses. Yet we replace them continuously, we also think nothing of ending millions of "lives" using sterilisation methods, for our own benifit.

But the crux seems to be that this is somehow, from conception, a "human" life. I'm going to commit a travesty and quote wikipedia here:

Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the forelimbs (arms) for manipulating objects.

A newborn child has a highly developed brain, capable of all of the above. It sits able to use it's arms instantly, and is capable of manipulating objects with its hands to an extent.

A fetus is capable of these to an extent, at 10 weeks into gestation it has the beginnings of all major organs, rudimentary hands and a nervous system. This nervous system, perhaps the main aspect of "humanity" fist begins development into its parts into the 5th week.

By contrast, the blastocyst is formed on the 5th day of gestation, four weeks before the first inclings of a brain or any organs. This is at the point where a third of these clumps of cells will simply give up the ghost and die anyway, with or without human intervention. This is also twenty weeks before the last chance of an abortion in Britain. I must assume you are also against abortion? Even when the child will kill its mother, cause her absolute misery for the remainder of her life, ruin her family or just die due to genetic defect within a few days or so? I am certainly pro-abortion, within limits, and taking a blastocyst is a long way below this.

Yes, a blastocyst is a potential life, but to disregard sperm and eggs as not is a great fallicy. The female human egg supply starts at 7 million, and has fallen to 1-2 million by birth and from that point falls dramatically. What makes a human? Certainly more then a cell clump barely visible by the human eye, and incapable of existing outside the womb, let alone doing anything more then float.

So I must ask you, what makes a human, human?

[Spartan90]

Yet again, very good points Silver Guard. You are correct in saying that all cells are alive, I presume I didn't explain myself enough. I can see this debate coming to a close, as we cannot debate on something that we cannot agree on. That being:-

I believe that the embryo / blastocyst is a human life from the moment of conception. You do not.

As I respect your decision, more so from the points that you bought out in the previous post, I must still disagree. The destruction of an embryo, no matter how noble the outcome of it's stem cells might produce, no matter the little chances the embryo has of actually becoming a human child, regardless of all these things - it doesn't give us an excuse to destroy something that I believe is a live human, and something that may soon become a child that will grow up to become a much-loved person.

Yes, you are correct on saying I am against abortion. In all forms to be exact. Yes you are right in that the mother may die in childbirth, it may cause the mother serious grief, the mother may have even be raped. However, most abortions have nothing to do with this, more likely that the pregnancy is unwanted. This still doesn't provide a suitable and moral excuse to kill the foetus. Was it the foetus' fault that the mother wasn't ready for the baby? Is it the foetus' fault that the mother was raped, or may die during childbirth?

If a woman is raped, it doesn't give her an excuse to kill anyone - let alone an innocent party. So why kill the foetus? If she can't bare to look at the child when it is born, it can always be put up for adoption. And don't get me started on the unethical reasons about aborting because a baby would purely 'get in the way'. I have a more personal reason to dislike abortion -- my mother was told by the doctors to abort my older brother as he had a very high chance of being born with several serious disabilities. My mother refused, and my brother hasn't a thing wrong with him. He is perfectly healthy, and even if he was born with disabilities, that still shouldn't give anyone an excuse to KILL him! Just because he would put a heavy burden on my parents.

Regardless, this is an entirely different debate, and I apologize for getting off topic. Nevertheless, I still believe the principles for abortion still apply to the destruction of an embryo to extract stem cells.

As a closing statement: The sanctity of life should be respected. The fact that an embryo has such a little chance of survival still shouldn't give anyone an excuse to destroy it for personal gain, regardless of how noble the outcomes. You wouldn't kill a starving African child even if it had little chance of survival would you? Just so you could get his organs?

[Silver Guard]

There is no such thing as a sanctity to life. I appreciate you have person reasons to think as you do due to your experience of your elder brother, but the facts unfortunately lie against you.

You are correct in saying that abortion is ending a life, and you are correct that I would not kill the African child. But there is a stark difference here. I will respond to the point of blastocysts and follow with the point of fetuses.

A life can be defined as: "A system that tend to respond to changes in its environment, and inside itself, in such a way as to promote their own continuation"

A Blastocyst does not. It is incapable of anything more then it's own self-replication. It is still within the stage it could split and become twins, so cannot be characterised as a single entity, or indeed much of an entity at all. It is incapable of monitoring itself in any way, instead it relies on it's "hosts" willingness to change the environment around it to keep it alive.

The blastocyst has more in common with a virus, or even a tape worm, then it does with a human being. It replicates itself within a host, feeds off it. It is incapable of surviving minute changes to the environment of it's host, capable of being killed instantly by simple things such as a fever.

Yes the blastocyst has the potential to develop to a human being, this is true. However, we do not judge things by their potential. We do not let a murderer run free from the potential to be a good man. We do not make friends with someone we hate out of the potential we may get along. We do not cut down a sapling out of the potential it will grow, be knocked down in a storm and crush our house. They are irrational stances to take. There is no certainty that the blastocyst will become a human, and so it is irrational to judge it on it's potential.

Whats more, just like a virus and tape worm, the blastocyst's growth leads to weakening of the host, essencially crippling it, and may lead to its death. It relies upon the host and makes it ill and incapacitated.

A blastocyst cannot be considered a life, nor can it be judged human on potential, seeing that it's potential is a weak and horrible one. Whats more, by not taking it for its stem calls, you are willingly allowing the deaths and illness of thousands of innocents. You are supporting mass murder.


The fetus, however, is a life. It portrays all the signs of life, growth, homeostasis, metabolism, et cetera. But you are of the position that abortion is the willing killing of an innocent potential human. However, to suggest that abortion is murder is a complete fallacy.

The fetus has no wants, it has no hopes, no dreams. Modern mental analysis leads to the belief that the mind is completely incapable of thought without stimulus. The most the fetus has as stimulus, and this is into the 15th week, far past the point most abortions occur, is dull thumps and muffled sounds, barely enough to constitute thought.

The mother, however, does. Picture a woman, 22, last year of university. All family is dead or unknown, she is there on a grant. Has no close friends or partners as she throws herself completely into her medical degree. She relies on this degree to make a living and gain the life shes always wanted, settled with family and a successful career woman. That is her dream.

One night coming back from the library she is brutally raped by a drunk thug. Bruised and cut repeatedly by the knife used to apprehend her, she is dragged to hospital, where she stays for a week recovering. The man is later found to have shot himself when apprehended. She, five weeks later, finds herself pregnant.

To continue now would not only ruin her degree, the struggles of pregnancy ruining her hopes for the marks she wants for a successful job, but the birth would occur immediately prior to exams. Yes she could give up the child to abortion, but what of the pregnancy even if she could give up the child she had bourn for nine months?

Women have to endure: Grossly enlarged breasts, lack of energy, skeletal re-alignment ruining any sporting hopes for a good year post pregnancy, feet size grows, difficulty in movement, massive gain in body weight, joints loosen becoming easier to dislodge, blood pressure soars making it difficult to conduct any exercise without risks and possibly risking the life of anyone overweight, breathing becomes more difficult, repetitive vomiting, difficulty controlling bowels and bladder, back pain, constipation, painful contractions, nausea and Hemorrhoids. And that's before the horror that is childbirth?

I would not rate this woman's chances of achieving her dream or leading a happy existence for months if not years if she does not have an abortion. And all due to misplaced feelings for an unfeeling, parasite-like side effect of a horrific rape. It is common for men to be pro-life as opposed to women. They have no idea of the effects of a pregnancy and childbirth.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I have realised that the debate seems to be reaching a standoff on life so I have re-aimed onto more emotive language and a more provocative topic. Hopefully it will move past the standoff!

[Spartan90]

My friend, you are right in saying our little debate may come to a standstill. I really appreciate your concern in keeping it alive, even though we may deviate from the original debate slightly Regardless, it is still talking about the main theme - respecting the sanctity of life. Which brings me to my rebuttal good sir

(as a disclaimer, please note that even though some parts of this rebuttal may sound quite attacking, I'm only adding it to make it seem a bit more passionate you still are one of the more respected people I know on TWC)

--

There is no such thing as tha sanctity of life? If life isn't sacred, what is!

In a nutshell, you make the point that a blastocyst / feotus / embryo is barely a potential human life, let alone an unborn child. So I ponder on this question: Is the blastocyst void of being catagorized as a future human just because without reliance on the mother, it would die? The simple and quick answer to that is no. Would you call a person that needs to be on a machine to live any less human than you and me? Just because something has a dependance or reliance on something else to survive, it does not mean that it makes them any less alive than healthier specimens. Continuing on this point, we all are dependant on so many things, much like the blastocyst is dependant on the mother -- we need the perfect amount of oxygen, we depend on the perfect amount of heat from the sun to reach us, we depend on the moon to act as a shield from potentially devastating meteors. Does this make us obsolete as lives? No, we are all dependant on countless things, much like the blastocyst.

Your points on the foetus is even more damaging to your case. As you have stated, the foetus has more chance of survival than the blastocyst, and therefore it would be more unethical to destroy it via abortion. The points you made about the foetus being able to associate with dull thumps and muffled sounds can be directly associated with the principle I wrote in my previous paragraph. A mentally disabled person may lose much usage of their bodies, and specifically their minds. Many may only be able to communicate with muffled noises and thuds. Even more so, the only thing that could associate them with being a human is that they look like one. Nevertheless, they still are human. Would you kill this human just because it can't communicate, let alone think like we may be able too? Would you abort an unborn child because it does the same?

I apologize mate, as I am going to cause a great no-no by quoting you. Sorry, just not too keen on writing it all out again You understand I'm sure sir.

Women have to endure: Grossly enlarged breasts, lack of energy, skeletal re-alignment ruining any sporting hopes for a good year post pregnancy, feet size grows, difficulty in movement, massive gain in body weight, joints loosen becoming easier to dislodge, blood pressure soars making it difficult to conduct any exercise without risks and possibly risking the life of anyone overweight, breathing becomes more difficult, repetitive vomiting, difficulty controlling bowels and bladder, back pain, constipation, painful contractions, nausea and Hemorrhoids. And that's before the horror that is childbirth?

(Take into account my disclaimer please ). This is utter rubbish. You try and justify an abortion by stating what every pregnant woman goes through? So are you saying if women experience this, they should get an abortion?! Say goodbye to mankind mate. And regardless, even if a woman was scared about this, that is still little to no valid excuse for the destruction of the life growing inside you! Would you cut off your leg because a scratch on your knee hurt? I think killing an innocent baby because you got raped is bad enough, but killing a baby because you get morning sickness?!?!

This now leads me to the next point -- the rebuttal of your university student illustration. The more classic example of why abortion shouldn't be banned. I don't want to dwell on this specifically, as I know many may find it offensive. Just take into account my previous points - would you kill an innocent because you were raped? Now I know that her career / uni degree may be put on hold, even finished. Yet that's still no excuse to hurt an innocent party. What's the difference between 'taking care of' a baby that is 20 weeks old in the womb, than strangling it 20 minutes after it pops out? Nothing, killing is killing.

--

Apologies if my rebuttal sounded a bit harsh, don't take any of it personal please! I think because you're obviously a more experienced and intelligent person than I am - especially with debating - it makes me whip out the really sad 'your post is crap!' technique

[Silver Guard]

Sorry for the lack of reply in quite a while, the lead up to exams has left me with very little time not revising, I promise I'll be back to normal standards shortly.