Embryonic stem cell research, for or against.

[killbot1000]

In the beginning of Stem Cell research that was the main premise for choosing ESC over ASC. Reason being the fact that ESC's could be easily changed into any type of cell the receiving patient needed. ASC's could only be applied if the receiving tissue was the same as the stem cell. In other words, if you needed stem cells to stop lukemia, you'd need to get those from healthy bone marrow.

 

However, as Research has continued, ASC's limitations have slowly been erased. Adult Stem Cells can now be transformed into 4 other different types of cells, hugely broadening their effects and the situations in which they can be used.

The problem here is that ESC does not work. It does not do what it was promised, and it has far less potential to do great medical things than ASC. The only reason that ESC's are heard about more, and are thought of to do better is because they have a better PR strategy. I'm not against using embryos that are going to be trashed, or are unused. Science can have them! I just don't see the point in pouring billions of government dollars that could go elsewhere into a program that just destroys embryos for no scientific gain. Once scientific progress has actually been made in ESC, then I'm fine for putting money into it and even allocating embryos for research. But not a second until then.

 

 

A good point, if the facts that you claim hold water (are actually true)

[wildcat69410]

A good point, if the facts that you claim hold water (are actually true)

 

I sure hope they are, lol.

 

[killbot1000]

Well, I researched it, and embryonic stem cell research has much more promise than adult stem cell research

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research

 

For those of you who dont care to read, the reason why Adult stem cells are a science today is because they have been studied since the 1960's, however embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998, so its in a much earlier stage, however, according to the National institute of health, embryonic stem cell sho much more promise than adult, just thought id coast that by all of you

[gwprod12]

Everyone knew that already. I for one have just been ignoring the "What I dont like doesnt work, Science Proves it" nitwittery.

[killbot1000]

Everyone knew that already. I for one have just been ignoring the "What I dont like doesnt work, Science Proves it" nitwittery.

 

I already knew that as well my friend, I was just trying to back up my reason for wildcat being wrong...I cant put it any more softly than that

[wildcat69410]

Well, I researched it, and embryonic stem cell research has much more promise than adult stem cell research

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research

 

For those of you who dont care to read, the reason why Adult stem cells are a science today is because they have been studied since the 1960's, however embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998, so its in a much earlier stage, however, according to the National institute of health, embryonic stem cell sho much more promise than adult, just thought id coast that by all of you

 

The NIH says that they are thought to have more promise simply for the fact that I mentioned earlier, that ESC can be currently transformed into any type of cell the body might need. However, ASC is overcoming that rather quickly. Plus that's wikipedia, not exactly a grade A source, no offense inteneded.

 

Dr. Peter Hollands, who holds a PhD in Stem Cell Biology from Cambridge University, and has worked extensively with Embryonic Stem Cells has often noted the fact that although ASC's have been used widely for treatments, Embryonic Stem Cells haven't been used once.

 

Dr. Hollands, who worked as a Clinical Embryologist at Bourn Hall Clinic, the World's First IFV unit, says that "common sense" dictates that resources be directed to Adult of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. "Embryonic stem cells have many legal, moral, ethical and religious objections before even the practicalities of obtaining the cells, growing them, storing them and not least transplanting them are addressed. Adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells are readily available, have no objections associated with them and are tried and tested in clinical use. Umbilical cord blood stem cells, for example, have been used over 3000 times for 45 different diseases!"

 

The reason Embryonic Stem Cell Research is believed to have much more promise is just because of their continued Political and Rhetorical hype, and the public's bought it. Adult and Umbilical Cord blood stem cells are ready to use, and have been proven in treatments of over 70 diseases, including Parkinsons! We need to get over the promises of ESC and focus on the Realities of ASC, the most readily available and only working Stem Cell Research available today.

[killbot1000]

The NIH says that they are thought to have more promise simply for the fact that I mentioned earlier, that ESC can be currently transformed into any type of cell the body might need. However, ASC is overcoming that rather quickly. Plus that's wikipedia, not exactly a grade A source, no offense inteneded.

 

Dr. Peter Hollands, who holds a PhD in Stem Cell Biology from Cambridge University, and has worked extensively with Embryonic Stem Cells has often noted the fact that although ASC's have been used widely for treatments, Embryonic Stem Cells haven't been used once.

 

Dr. Hollands, who worked as a Clinical Embryologist at Bourn Hall Clinic, the World's First IFV unit, says that "common sense" dictates that resources be directed to Adult of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. "Embryonic stem cells have many legal, moral, ethical and religious objections before even the practicalities of obtaining the cells, growing them, storing them and not least transplanting them are addressed. Adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells are readily available, have no objections associated with them and are tried and tested in clinical use. Umbilical cord blood stem cells, for example, have been used over 3000 times for 45 different diseases!"

 

The reason Embryonic Stem Cell Research is believed to have much more promise is just because of their continued Political and Rhetorical hype, and the public's bought it. Adult and Umbilical Cord blood stem cells are ready to use, and have been proven in treatments of over 70 diseases, including Parkinsons! We need to get over the promises of ESC and focus on the Realities of ASC, the most readily available and only working Stem Cell Research available today.

 

 

The funny thing about wikipedia, is that a study was done on it, to determine its validity, 1000 random articles were taken from wikipedia, and 1000 from a published dictionary, I think it was encarta or something. On the average, wikipedias articles had half as many errors in them. Just thought id shoot that by people who dont think wikipedia is a credible source

[gwprod12]

The reason Embryonic stem cells are considered to have more potential than Adult Stem Cells is that Embryonic Stem Cells can differentiate into any type of cell, whereas Adult Stem Cells (somatic cells) can only differentiate into specific kinds of cells.

 

There is inherently more potential in studying how a cell that can be manipulated into any other type of cell, than studying a cell that can only differentiate selectively.

 

Adult Stem Cell research is interesting, and useful. But it's been going on for a long time. No one denies there are ethical considerations. However, those ethical considerations arent a good measurement of how useful the research would be. Embryonic stem cell research is incredibly valuable research.

 

EDIT: Wikipedia is an incredible resource. And frankly, if you dont agree with what it says, just go verify it elsewhere.

[killbot1000]

EDIT: Wikipedia is an incredible resource. And frankly, if you dont agree with what it says, just go verify it elsewhere.

 

 

Fo' Shizzle! jk

[wildcat69410]

Wikipedia is an incredible resource. And frankly, if you dont agree with what it says, just go verify it elsewhere.

 

Can be an incredible source. The only reason that the 1000 random articles had half as many errors in them is because of the fact that they can be readily updated without having to re-publish an entire new edition like a standard encyclopedia. Plus, seeing as people do it, they don't have to pay staff or anything to update it, they can count on the public to update it on their own.

 

That same thing though can also create a lot of inconsistencies. That's the reason why most college professors won't accept it, anything you or I put in there could be used as a source. I could say that Embryonic Stem Cells are what I ate for lunch, and it might be put up there as a definition. What makes it more quickly updatable can cause it to be less accurate.

 

The reason Embryonic stem cells are considered to have more potential than Adult Stem Cells is that Embryonic Stem Cells can differentiate into any type of cell, whereas Adult Stem Cells (somatic cells) can only differentiate into specific kinds of cells.

 

There is inherently more potential in studying how a cell that can be manipulated into any other type of cell, than studying a cell that can only differentiate selectively.

 

Adult Stem Cell research is interesting, and useful. But it's been going on for a long time. No one denies there are ethical considerations. However, those ethical considerations arent a good measurement of how useful the research would be. Embryonic stem cell research is incredibly valuable research.

 

Again, ASC are quickly overcoming that barrier, and even with its limited differentiated capabilities, it has already cured 70 diseases, including Parkinsons! Imagine what ASC's could do once their full potential has been unleashed. Even with ESC's ability to differentiate to any type of cell, how many diseases has it cured? Absolutely zero! You'd think that with all the advancements made in ASC, that ESC would be able to play catch up rather well. Even considering how much longer we've researched ASC's, ESC's have had a large amount of time to produce something, yet they haven't.

 

Even considering ASC's rather large head start back in the 60's, how much do you think they could have accomplished in terms of serious medical advancement back then with that technology? Not much. Most of the advancement that has been made in stem cell technology has happened within the past decade, giving ESC's all the technology and time it needs to advance and show us it can accomplish something.

 

And, nobody's refuted the fact that Dr. Hollands, a well known Stem Cell Biologist has found that ASC's have far more medical potential, and should be placed in a higher priority over ESC's right now. All ESC knows how to do right now is run a very effective PR campaign, which they've done quite well. ESC has been given Embryos, but all they've done is complain for more, and more.

 

Until ESC's have accomplished just one of the things that ASC has, I don't see the justification in adding more embryos and more money into the program. We've already given them enough to start with, and for them to progress with, but until I actually see technological and medical progression in the field of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, I don't see the point.

[gwprod12]

The problem with your argument is that it basicly says this:

 

Embryonic Stem Cells shouldnt be studied, because so far, they havent produced any useful therapies.

 

The issue isnt whether or not studying Embryonic Stem Cells is cost effective, because that's up to the people spending the money on the research. The question is whether or not it should be legal or allowed.

 

Even if you're right and Adult Stem Cells have 1000 times more potential, what difference does it make? If you're trying to say "I shouldnt have to pay for research that I dont think is worthwhile" that's debateable. If you're saying "I dont like that scientists want to study embryonic stem cells", it really isnt your call.

 

Again, to reiterate. The fact that you, and quite possibly "Dr Holland", who, btw, is deeply involved in Embryonic Stem Cell research, dont want to do it isnt germaine.

 

Be intellectually honest when you answer this question. If embryonic stem cells could be harvested from a fetus without killing it, would you still be against Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

[wildcat69410]

The issue isnt whether or not studying Embryonic Stem Cells is cost effective, because that's up to the people spending the money on the research. The question is whether or not it should be legal or allowed.

 

And as it stands right now, it is mostly private compaines paying for the grants. But as people continue to fight for it in the Senate and House, it could soon become a Government issue, where the taxpayers will have to be funding it. Then it'll be my money that will be spent on things like Embryonic Stem Cell Research. It's already legal and allowed.

 

Even if you're right and Adult Stem Cells have 1000 times more potential, what difference does it make? If you're trying to say "I shouldnt have to pay for research that I dont think is worthwhile" that's debateable. If you're saying "I dont like that scientists want to study embryonic stem cells", it really isnt your call.

 

What difference does it make? That's the entire point of this debate, if we're for or against Embryonic Stem Cell research. I'm against it because their is something out there that is so much better! I'm fine with Scientists who study Embryonic Stem Cells! I don't care if they study them or not, my issue is ignoring the fact that ASC's are so much better, and can provide so many better things. I don't want to support something, or even pay for something that has far less promise than something else. It's like making an investment in a bucket and water fire brigade when I could make an equal investment in a brand new fire truck! Sure, the bucket and fire brigade might get a small fire done, but the fire truck could do so much more and for the same money!

 

Be intellectually honest when you answer this question. If embryonic stem cells could be harvested from a fetus without killing it, would you still be against Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

 

On a certain level, I would be more open to it. But to say that I'd support it is still out of the question. Eventually, if research goes down the road I'm envisioning, the Government will have to fund one over the other. I don't see putting my taxdollars down the drain for a research that now does nothing for anybody, and will probably continue to do nothing for anybody, while I could be putting money into something that actually solves a serious problem. That actually cures diseases!

[gwprod12]

This really evinces an... imperfect... understanding of the actual issue. Embryonic Stem Cell research is a very different thing than Adult stem cell research. The entirety of what is being worked with is different.

 

What we're really looking at isnt the difference between VHS and Beta, or Diesel vs Gasoline engines. What we're talking about here is similar to the difference between Oceanography and Astronomy.

 

Imagine trying to convince scientists that there is no potential in oceanography, because astronomy is where all the answers lie, when Astronomy doesnt have any answers to oceanographic questions.

 

I think your perspective is that Adult Stem Cells offer the same potential to answer the same questions as Embryonic Stem Cells. Except that they both answer different questions in different ways.

 

Though I will admit that there's a lot of "hype" associated with Embryonic Stem Cells, leading people to the conclusion that studying them will somehow cure cancer for their husband or daughter, or whatever. No one can make claims about the discoveries that will be made, that is definitely true. But you definitely wont discover anything if you refuse to look at it.

 

I equate it, to some extent to the building of Superconducting Supercolliders. What practical application does a Superconducting Supercollider have? None. They're also incredibly expensive. So why do we build these gigantic machines that will never pay for themselves? Because they allow us to understand the universe. And you NEVER know where knowledge will lead. (Just ask J Robert Oppenheimer)

[wildcat69410]

But you definitely wont discover anything if you refuse to look at it.

 

I'm not necessarily against looking into it on the short term, with what has already been provided to them. It's just on the long term scale, I believe ASC's will prove to be more productive and cure more diseases. I'm just not yet willing to make the leap between the two until ESC's have actually produced some scientific/medical progress that I can look at and go, "Oh, I see, ESC's really can do stuff they claim to do".

 

This really evinces an... imperfect... understanding of the actual issue. Embryonic Stem Cell research is a very different thing than Adult stem cell research. The entirety of what is being worked with is different.

 

What we're really looking at isnt the difference between VHS and Beta, or Diesel vs Gasoline engines. What we're talking about here is similar to the difference between Oceanography and Astronomy.

 

Imagine trying to convince scientists that there is no potential in oceanography, because astronomy is where all the answers lie, when Astronomy doesnt have any answers to oceanographic questions.

 

I think your perspective is that Adult Stem Cells offer the same potential to answer the same questions as Embryonic Stem Cells. Except that they both answer different questions in different ways.

 

Damn, that opener is too good to counter there, I'll just have to agree with you.

[gwprod12]

I guess the topic is unclearly stated. I figured it meant "Do you think Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be allowed? Or not?".

 

I think you just dont want to pay for it... which is fine.

[BMC6053]

I voted yes but truly.. why not just use the stem cells from the placenta, which is discarded with the trash anyway - something even the faithful should not have a problem with?

[wildcat69410]

I voted yes but truly.. why not just use the stem cells from the placenta, which is discarded with the trash anyway - something even the faithful should not have a problem with?

 

I'm fine with that, that isn't embryonic, and yet can be used an applied with ASC Research to provide cures. The placenta stem cells along with the Umbilical Stem Cells provide plenty of research potential, with no wasting of embryos, and have a much larger chance of succeeding.

 

You're exactly right.

[Rhapsody Guru]

Intresting....

85% voted for stem cell research.

I voted Yes.

A cure for cancer or other horrible diseases could be found.

 

 

Uh hold on a minute dude... has anyone heard of ADULT STEM CELLS? They are actually more effective than their embryonic counterparts.

 

Seriously...it doesnt matter, these are just embryos here, theyre not really people yet, so why treat them as such.

 

I find it amazing how some people have no problem sending real people to die in a war, but absolutely are mortified by the thought of using the building blocks of a human for science? its absolutely ridiculous...

 

Actually, they are as much of a person as you are Mr. KillBot. This is so stupid. Everybody wants to believe that the moment a baby comes out of the mom, it all of a sudden becomes human. Now does that make any logical sense? No way dude! If I was put on a feeding tube because I become paralyzed, am I still a human or just a hunk of flesh? KillBot, answer this question, when does a fetus become human? When it pops out? At its third trimester? Second? First?

 

 

Guru

[gwprod12]

Again, I have to stop you. Adult Stem Cells have been studied for decades. Embryonic Stem Cells have only been studied for a few years. While it is true that all current Stem Cell therapies have been derived from Adult Stem Cells, that is not proof that Embryonic Stem Cells have less or no potential.

 

Just making sure that's understood.

 

I dont have any objection to grinding up an embryo for a scientific experiment, but I understand other's do. The logical course of action is to develop a technology to harvest stem cells without destroying an embryo. Just as the logical course of action in the case of Abortion is to remove the fetus and put it into storage or donate it to someone else, instead of destroying it.

 

EDIT: The hallmark of a human being is it's capability for reason. An unreasoning being is an animal or hunk of flesh. I dont think this transition occurs at any given time. It also doesnt occur for everyone.

 

[killbot1000]

Again, I have to stop you. Adult Stem Cells have been studied for decades. Embryonic Stem Cells have only been studied for a few years. While it is true that all current Stem Cell therapies have been derived from Adult Stem Cells, that is not proof that Embryonic Stem Cells have less or no potential.

 

Just making sure that's understood.

 

I dont have any objection to grinding up an embryo for a scientific experiment, but I understand other's do. The logical course of action is to develop a technology to harvest stem cells without destroying an embryo. Just as the logical course of action in the case of Abortion is to remove the fetus and put it into storage or donate it to someone else, instead of destroying it.

 

EDIT: The hallmark of a human being is it's capability for reason. An unreasoning being is an animal or hunk of flesh. I dont think this transition occurs at any given time. It also doesnt occur for everyone.

 

 

 

Youre completly right, I feel the same way, even though Im the

[Jeezoflip]

I dont have a problem with it. I think its stupid not to. People are so hyped up about saving embrioes that have the potential of becoming life. But what their missing is, they might not have it, so save the dying people who already have life, dying of cancer and such. Im not some extreamist here, but im gonna go out on a limb. Ill bet that pharmisutical companies have cures to some of these illnesses, and are waiting to release it to make more money off of it, or, just to make drugs that keep you alive longer because they have to be used constantly, so they make more money.

[wildcat69410]

I dont have a problem with it. I think its stupid not to. People are so hyped up about saving embrioes that have the potential of becoming life. But what their missing is, they might not have it, so save the dying people who already have life, dying of cancer and such.

 

Oh yeah, embryonic stem cells will cure cancer. That's just another classic, unfulfilled promise that ESC has made. Sure, ASC has been studied much longer than ESC has, but considering that a majority of the progress was made in the past few years due to the increase in technology, ASC has had about the same amount of "technologically able time" that ESC has. Yet ASC doesn't make promises, they make cures.

 

And so you're saying that somebody who already has life, is more valuable than a person that has the same amount of potential life? Should I kill my child to cure the life of a 75 year old with heart problems, even though that same person will probably die soon anyway? If you want to talk about something be over-hyped, take a look at ESC. All you hear about is the "potential progress" ESC has. All you see are the promises that ESC will make. In the end, ESC is nothing BUT hype.

 

Im not some extreamist here, but im gonna go out on a limb. Ill bet that pharmisutical companies have cures to some of these illnesses, and are waiting to release it to make more money off of it, or, just to make drugs that keep you alive longer because they have to be used constantly, so they make more money.

 

Right... Sorry to let you know, but you pretty much are an extremist. There isn't any pharmaceutical company out there that's hoarding secret cures, and are trying to wait until a good time to release them. There's no hidden cures the government has supressed. If there was a cure, we'd have it. Period.

[killbot1000]

Oh yeah, embryonic stem cells will cure cancer. That's just another classic, unfulfilled promise that ESC has made. Sure, ASC has been studied much longer than ESC has, but considering that a majority of the progress was made in the past few years due to the increase in technology, ASC has had about the same amount of "technologically able time" that ESC has. Yet ASC doesn't make promises, they make cures.

 

And so you're saying that somebody who already has life, is more valuable than a person that has the same amount of potential life? Should I kill my child to cure the life of a 75 year old with heart problems, even though that same person will probably die soon anyway? If you want to talk about something be over-hyped, take a look at ESC. All you hear about is the "potential progress" ESC has. All you see are the promises that ESC will make. In the end, ESC is nothing BUT hype.

Right... Sorry to let you know, but you pretty much are an extremist. There isn't any pharmaceutical company out there that's hoarding secret cures, and are trying to wait until a good time to release them. There's no hidden cures the government has supressed. If there was a cure, we'd have it. Period.

 

 

He said nothing about killing kids, an embryo isnt a kid, sorry to burst your bubble.

[Jeezoflip]

Oh yeah, embryonic stem cells will cure cancer. That's just another classic, unfulfilled promise that ESC has made. Sure, ASC has been studied much longer than ESC has, but considering that a majority of the progress was made in the past few years due to the increase in technology, ASC has had about the same amount of "technologically able time" that ESC has. Yet ASC doesn't make promises, they make cures.

 

And so you're saying that somebody who already has life, is more valuable than a person that has the same amount of potential life? Should I kill my child to cure the life of a 75 year old with heart problems, even though that same person will probably die soon anyway? If you want to talk about something be over-hyped, take a look at ESC. All you hear about is the "potential progress" ESC has. All you see are the promises that ESC will make. In the end, ESC is nothing BUT hype.

Right... Sorry to let you know, but you pretty much are an extremist. There isn't any pharmaceutical company out there that's hoarding secret cures, and are trying to wait until a good time to release them. There's no hidden cures the government has supressed. If there was a cure, we'd have it. Period.

 

Okay, since you obviously seem so overly confident Mr. Wildcat - you {censored} about how the government is so holy, and non-corrupt – yeah and I see flying pigs out my window right now. I mean come on, are you serious? Politics are one of the most, if not the most corrupt business’ in the world. If you can honestly sit there, and think that they aren’t then you obviously are oblivious to everything around you, or don’t own a T.V. Of course they would lie about something like this, to make money off of it in the long run. Money is the key to all of economy and power, and our government is quite fond of it (not to mention we are trillions of dollars in debt, so it may be some use to us).

 

Also, - No dip{censored}, I’m not an extremist. Obviously you have most of your terms mixed up, like you did on marriage in the other thread. An extremist is someone who actively participates in getting their belief out there. I am not a radical, fanatic, activist or any of that. I don’t go blow up buildings, or participate in riots over stem cell research, or that matter, {censored} marriage. I am just a person who has an opinion. And honestly, I can care less about stem cell research; it was just my opinion on it. You don’t have to jump all over someone the second they state theirs just because you don’t agree with it. So pull what ever it is out of your ass, and shut up. And on a side note, I’m not telling you to kill your kids. An embryo has the potential of life. It doesn’t have life yet. So why have random people die who already have life, then save something that might not have it. It is it really worth it? No. "Period."

[wildcat69410]

Okay, since you obviously seem so overly confident Mr. Wildcat - you {censored} about how the government is so holy, and non-corrupt – yeah and I see flying pigs out my window right now. I mean come on, are you serious? Politics are one of the most, if not the most corrupt business’ in the world. If you can honestly sit there, and think that they aren’t then you obviously are oblivious to everything around you, or don’t own a T.V. Of course they would lie about something like this, to make money off of it in the long run. Money is the key to all of economy and power, and our government is quite fond of it (not to mention we are trillions of dollars in debt, so it may be some use to us).

 

I'm usually overly confident for a reason, in this case, it's because you're so obviously wrong. I don't {censored} about how the government is so holy and non-corrupt. If you read any of my other threads, including the one on healthcare, I posted about how I wouldn't want to trust anything to the government. Sure, there is corruptivity out there, but that doesn't provide the proof that there are pharmaceutical companies out there that are just witholding cures for money. Sure, the Government may be corrupt, I'll agree! But, no Government is stupid enough to withold a cure that they could obtain just as much money for now, as they could later. It's rediculuous to assume that the Government is secretly hoarding cures to suddenly release them and make billions, only an idiot could believe that.

 

Also, - No dip{censored}, I’m not an extremist. Obviously you have most of your terms mixed up, like you did on marriage in the other thread. An extremist is someone who actively participates in getting their belief out there. I am not a radical, fanatic, activist or any of that. I don’t go blow up buildings, or participate in riots over stem cell research, or that matter, {censored} marriage. I am just a person who has an opinion. And honestly, I can care less about stem cell research; it was just my opinion on it. You don’t have to jump all over someone the second they state theirs just because you don’t agree with it. So pull what ever it is out of your ass, and shut up. And on a side note, I’m not telling you to kill your kids. An embryo has the potential of life. It doesn’t have life yet. So why have random people die who already have life, then save something that might not have it. It is it really worth it? No. "Period."

 

Uh, the only dip{censored} here is you smartass. I think its sorta funny that you criticize me for mixing up terms, yet you mention the most extreme "extremist" definitions you can think of. Not every extremist blows up buildings, or participates in riots. There are extremists that have absolutely radical and stupid claims. I'm posting about one of them (hint hint). You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how rediculous it may be. I didn't jump all over anything you said, I just disagreed with you. The only person that jumped back was you, calling me an overly confident dip{censored}. Let's check back with extremist now, you have a completely radical claim of medical cure suppression, followed up by radically voicing your idea including insults, and you're ironically hypocritical. Yep, I'd definitely call you an extremist.

 

You still didn't respond to the core of my point. Why should we kill something that potentially has 70 years of life, to extend someone else's 5, or 10 years. It's the same reason we don't do heart transplants with people that are incredibly old, and that after a certain point, we stop giving older people treatments. It's not worth the time, money, etc to keep that person alive. I'm not supporting euthenasia or anything extremist like that, I'm just saying its logical to give a potential person life, a life that could last 70 + years, rather than destroy it to extend a person's 5 or 10.

 

That's logical, period.