Bush losing Stem Cell battle

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html

Yet another Stem cell topic for our feeble minds. I'll get quick to the point of where I have a problem with this, and then you guys can discuss.

This is one of the rare times I will agree with Bush. It is in truth that Stem Cell research would be beneficial to the medical world in preventing diseases and providing cures, and Bush's statements against this are that, it is wrong to take human life to save human life, and with it at tax payers dollars.

It is especially true with the second statement of what Bush said. I find it outragous that scientists and doctors want taxpayers to provide cures and such for many diseases, and then once the research for a particular case is completed, pharmacies will go around, take the cure, and sell it off their shelves and make a profit. First, we pay the government to provide us with these cures, and then we ALSO have to buy them? Thats ludicrious!

As for the first statement, that tackles of a more religious background, so I'll keep that area clear if someone else wants it. My mind is open, so discuss your opinions on this

Thats the entire point. No one gives off drugs for free. We pay for the research of the medicine, then pay to buy it. Not both. Its how the world works, unless we want no research and medicine at all.

Didn't we get our medicine system of today throughout hundreds of years of people dying for it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meat Puppet

Didn't we get our medicine system of today throughout hundreds of years of people dying for it?

---

yeah pretty much thus this medicine system has caused an overpopulation of humans.

Bush demonstrates the fact he is a sanctimonious wanker by refusing to legislate potentially life-saving stem cell research because it's " not ethical".Boohoohoo, Bush, I suppose allowing thousands of soldiers to die needlessly in the viperpit formerly known as Iraq while you preach the Lord's blessing upon America and demonstrate your superior intelligence by WAVING at Stevie Wonder is just befitting " God's President ".

sheez stupid wanker...

1 embryo can emit a canny lot of stem cells that can save more than 1 person

embryos in labs cannot become feutusus (or however it is spelt) without death they can only survive a few days and these stem cells can become major benefits for millions of people with life threatening diseases and stuff

and bush can talk can't he sending a few thousand people into a country to die for no reason what a spaz

Yeah Bush is a wanker at that lol. A hypocryte also.Talk about being this and that then does that and this,

What people refuse to realize is that the embryos from which they get the ESCs will eventually die, anyway. These are embryos without families and lives. The life of a person with people who care about them takes precedence over a cell that would die within a matter of days. Many people also refuse to see the possibilities of stem cell research and its benefits. Not only is it a cure for many diseases, it is a potential cure for cancer and HIV and AIDS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomethingBig

What people refuse to realize is that the embryos from which they get the ESCs will eventually die, anyway. These are embryos without families and lives. The life of a person with people who care about them takes precedence over a cell that would die within a matter of days. Many people also refuse to see the possibilities of stem cell research and its benefits. Not only is it a cure for many diseases, it is a potential cure for cancer and HIV and AIDS.

---

WEll as long as the people remain stupid.They will always be to pro life.

I'm for life but I'm also for choice and also.I think that stem cell research will be very beneficial.

the embroyes created for stem cells are really really really small. it's not like they are made by "making love" it's a scientist poking around with sperm and egg. it's about as alive as toilet bacteria.

and about the paying for drugs things. in britain all perscriptions ar the same price (unless you are in full time education, disabled, long term sick, old, on unemployment benefits in which case they are free) and we do fine with lots of research.

in a way i do hope america doesn't legalize it. then we can lead the way and when america decides that it might be a cool idea it will be on our terms unless they want to do a few years of research.

Modern Medicine is extremely unnatural since it flouts Natural selection. But it's a little late for that. So I'm for the reasearch. The U.S. could be falling badly behind, and this knowledge could save many. The right presents it as Evil mad scientists killing babies for their debauched experiments.

Why in the hell is this a taxpayer issue?

I'm against it on the basis that our tax money shouldn't go into this, and that stem cell research should be a private venture.

I don't really have a stance on whether tax dollars go into it or not, because I have to pay taxes forcibly and the government could care less how I feel about where it goes, so I'll just pay it and keep my mouth shut.

As far as a stance on Stem Cell Research however, I'm in complete support of it. You can't "take a life to save another" when the life never really exsisted to be taken in the first place.

You'd rather people keep dying?

I don't see what the big deal with taxpayer money is.

I fail to understand how a stem cell is a "human life"...


And I'm not sure what Bush's deal with morality is. He's certainly killed alot of real people during his first term in office. Where does he get off talking about "morals"?

First of, just to get this out of the way, Bush didn't kill anyone by going to Iraq. Those smurfing terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests did. I don't care about politics or anything like that, Sudam was a guy who killed and oppressed his own people, wouldn't let anyone speak up for themselves, and was basically the most selfish bastard in the world. For those reasons alone we should have taken his sorry ass out of power a long time ago.

Anyway, sorry for getting off topic.

As far as the whole stem cell research thing goes. Could it save lives? Probably; I'm definitely open to the idea. The real problem is though: would I be able to afford it? As it stands right now, I can't afford most medical treatments that already exists. If I have Liver failure, I'm smurfed. I couldn't afford a transplant, and my insurance company sure as hell wouldn't pay for it. The medical field is spreading itself too thin. It needs to consolidate what it already has and make more treatments available to the lower class before moving on the stem cell research.

that's herbie why us over here have a lovely NHS.

"First of, just to get this out of the way, Bush didn't kill anyone by going to Iraq. Those smurfing terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests did." i think the american solderis with the guns and tanks and planes also did a little bit of the killing.

Wow nicely done! Just when I thought there were people left in this world i read this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomethingBig

What people refuse to realize is that the embryos from which they get the ESCs will eventually die, anyway. These are embryos without families and lives. The life of a person with people who care about them takes precedence over a cell that would die within a matter of days. Many people also refuse to see the possibilities of stem cell research and its benefits. Not only is it a cure for many diseases, it is a potential cure for cancer and HIV and AIDS.

---

Ok good point. Now look at it under a broader scope.

Embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

Pro-life: Ok I am pro-life. Lining embryos up to to be ripped apart is going to kill them. The excuse, “Well they are good as dead anyways” is not a valid excuse. We would have to look outside the scope of this issue and see why these embryos are being secluded anyways. To me the whole idea is entirely selfish and defies many different moral issues. It is not worth the small plight of a happy ending to create and sacrifice lives.

Pro-choice: I am not pro choice. As the choice never includes the one who really matters. A choice made by one person to kill another person is murder. Most people take pro-choice as an act of freedom. Well here freedom deceits law. The fetus does not have rights, so we say that it is not murder. But yet we do consider a fetus to be human, and murder is a human killing a human through any median.

Pro-choice people can look at these cases like this. Talks occur of weather or not it is ok to clone humans and raise them (as long as they are vegtables at ‘birth’) for human organ farming. I have a friend whom claims that there are other countries looking into this. (not that I believe it 100% but it is applicable here) Is this Ethical? Just how unethical is ethical goanna get!?

I think that the philosophy that we should be looking at is to protect each other. I mean some could have been brought into the world as an embryo doomed to be ripped apart. I know some of the adolescent negatives here will say that is destiny, but if there are any righteous people any more – why wouldn’t you give anything to help someone. Why let this streak of killing go on?

Do we really want the world to become that selfish? That disrespectful over life – one thing that is still a complete enigma to us. A world where the people are so numb and selfish, that other lives will be take to ensure they live 5 more years? When will the fear of death leave this morbid planet and allow people to live their lives out?

Bipper

Also on the US killing people over seas - We don’t kill indiscriminately by nature. If you get killed over there - there is usually a reason. We are not the bad guys in any way. If you say we are and that we should of left the tyrany of sadom go on - then we are really on opposite sides of that fence

I just don't like it when leaders use religious themes of morality to justify certain things.It's ... disturbing ...

"The fetus does not have rights, so we say that it is not murder. But yet we do consider a fetus to be human, and murder is a human killing a human through any median."

will people stop this. it is not a fetus. it is an embreyo. it is a few cells about the size of a pin head. an embreyo is as close to live as a human hair or toe nail. a fetus would be more like a leg i suppose. it's illegal to go round removing them willy nilly, there are rules and regulations about removing legs. some times legs are removed because they need to be in case of gangreene, menigitis a nasty incident with a shotgun etc. but you can't do it to a guy sat in front of you at the cinema.

You make no sence.

you read the post and all you can say is that an embryo is toe nail bacteria as opposed to a leg? hrm.. smurfed. I kinda see what you mean - so babies should die and adults should live - because we are so much better?

Anyways, a fetus is developed from what - and embryo. Embryo from what? Blastoid - fertalized eg -- a very immature (not charactaristically litterally) human being. Not bacteria.

I can say that the terrorists are bacteria but that doesn't make it true. But i guess there was SO MUCH scientific evidence and logic to back it up.. how could I argue :rolleyes2

Thanks for the insight though - read the post mabey?

And btw a fetus is like two legs, two arms, a head, heart, and soul kk?
I am sure you can find evidenc of that out there.. good luck.
Bipper

my point was about the total lack of human life in an embreyo. compared to that of a fetus or grow human. it was a metaphor type thingy.

Life: I don't have more life than you. And embrio has no more than I do and NO LESS. Life is not a measure - lifespan mabey.

Bipper

so are we to put an embreoy's life above 50 dying people?

No and that is my point. Should we put them beneath.. no.

Should they rip you apart and look for a cure - no. Me- I hope not.


Thanks again
Bipper

sure once i have no conscious thought, pain, emotion, or anything else that might actual resemble human life except for genetics then fine they can open me right up.

*reads through first couple of posts*

This is the problem with government-controlled, government-funded medical research. It should be privatized. One reason: people should not be forced to fund anything, especially something they don't agree with. If I don't agree with stem cell research, the money forced from me is still going to pay it. But that is besides the point.

I, personally, would support stem cell research. I don't consider embryos as human life, especially ones that won't live for more than 15 or so days(which is the lifespan of lab-made embryos).

I think that's the real issue. Unless someone is against organ doning. Because that's basically what it is. I'm an organ doner. When I die I hope I save a life or two. That's what the embryos are for. They are going to die. Why not save some lives along the way? So what the real problem I suppose would be is that we shouldn't be growing them in the first place? Suppose it DID live? O_o;; Imagine the physical, and probably psychological problems from developing outside a womb. So the ethical stance should be not about taking life, if life is what you can call, but rather to not bring the life about in the first place.

I'm not "pro-choice". I'm pro stem cell research. Like others have said, it's a small cluster of cells, they've developed into nothing, and they will develop into nothing. (By that I mean they will not become a human life by my deffinition by any means because they'd die way before they become anything like a human). If I could donate a few skin cells in order for research, I would, because that's basically all this amounts to. A small cluster of cells. The only catch is that these are very special cells. My skin cells can't compete with the potential of a stem cell. Its just a very small "organism" we created, its sole purpose is to potentially save lives, and that's exactly what its being used for. It has a purpose, it fulfills its purpose. At least its "death" (if that's what you want to call it) is most deffinitely not in vain. Which is more than can be said about still-borns and such. Which on the subject I would also agree on organ donations from (with parents' permission of course). As I'm sure whoever donated the sperm and eggs for embryo development agreed to.

Quote:

---

First of, just to get this out of the way, Bush didn't kill anyone by going to Iraq. Those smurfing terrorists with bombs strapped to their chests did.

---

Yeah he did. But enough of this. I don't want to turn this into another Bush bashing topic.

Quote:

---

you read the post and all you can say is that an embryo is toe nail bacteria as opposed to a leg? hrm.. smurfed. I kinda see what you mean - so babies should die and adults should live - because we are so much better?

---

:lol: what??

Quote:

---

Anyways, a fetus is developed from what - and embryo. Embryo from what? Blastoid - fertalized eg -- a very immature (not charactaristically litterally) human being. Not bacteria.

---

Said embryo is not going to make it's way into an egg. It will NOT ever become a human. If it isn't a human, and can't become a human, how can we still consider it 'human'?

An embryo has no conscience, no sentience. And besides this isn't even embryos it's stem cells. They fertilise an egg and start harvesting the genetic factory that comes out of that for stem cells (something like that, right?).

Regardless without any sort of moral law we can remotely apply towards it, it is about as morally wrong as throwing a stone. The reason you may think it matters is because you apply too much meaning to humans -- even their individual cells have the equivalent value as the full human being.

That's not consistent.

Ok - this is going nowhere - you can't argue agains people who throw little evidence up.. So lets kick this up a notch.

Bipper's School of the Unborn:

Week 1: Fertilization
Week 2: Cell formation into three layers - If life does not begin at conception - i belive it does in the next step
week 4: Embryo! - yes virgina - one month after conception is a begining embryo. See it now? Yes embrios have neural activity and do feel to an extent. The line between fetus and embryo is very blurred- I see it defined differently all over.

Now I do not agree that if the embryo will die - to harvest it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vyk

unless someone is against organ doning. Because that's basically what it is. I'm an organ doner. When I die I hope I save a life or two.

---

Oh yeah, by the way we are not gonna wait for you to die to harvest your organs - or better yet - let us speed up the process.. That aint right? now is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vyk

If I could donate a few skin cells in order for research, I would, because that's basically all this amounts to.

---

What if you had to die to do this?

Also how is pro-choice allowing you to be be pro-stem cell. The stem cell does not have much of a choice :confused: Less your refering to the scintists choice - or the publics choice :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Said embryo is not going to make it's way into an egg. It will NOT ever become a human. If it isn't a human, and can't become a human, how can we still consider it 'human'?

---

An embryo is a fertalized egg- it is a baby... simple as that. I am pretty sure babies are human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:
you read the post and all you can say is that an embryo is toe nail bacteria as opposed to a leg? hrm.. smurfed. I kinda see what you mean - so babies should die and adults should live - because we are so much better?

---

That was directed towards number 9's comments to a embryo being comparable to a bit of bacteria under your toenail and such :)

And furthermore stemcells can be collected whenever a baby is born - We dont need to harvest people to do this cause its faster... We should realy quit taking these things for granted. I have two kids, and I would NEVER want to see them killed off for science in any part of thier life. With such a disregaurd for life - I wonder why people want to live so much longer...? :confused:

what??

"Yes embrios have neural activity and do feel to an extent." no they don't. they don't have nerve cells, a brain or cortex. in the same way the don't have skin, eyes, heart, lungs or sex.

Most people are unaware that unborn children can actually feel pain. In the 1980's, studies emerged showing that the unborn child is sufficiently developed to feel pain. By the late 1990's, the medical community agreed that a child feels pain at 20 weeks gestation.

20 weeks, and pain is destinguished. yeah then the person is in its fetal stage.

Well look at it this way - pain as we feel it is a negative feeling created by our nervous system - while these cells are alive (duh) we know that they fight for life and have a system of tolerance as well. Though the pain they feel may not be the same as ours, it is very much alike. I admit nerual was the wrong choice of words to use. I was using a metephore (look at the to an extent part...).

That small tid bit aside there is a lot more going on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://texasrighttolife.com/updates/0401.html

Recently, many problems with embryonic stem cells have surfaced, one being that the results from current research have been moderate at best. The leading corporation which funds embryonic stem cell research, The Geron Corporation, reports that embryonic cells might not be easy to manipulate and that these cells may actually produce tumors or other harmful growths when transplanted into patients.

Meanwhile, pro-abortion groups and the medical community have ignored other available sources of stem cells. Acquiring the cells from adult bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, the scalps of living humans, and even stem cells of recently deceased humans provide alternative, life-affirming research options. These adult stem cells can be controlled and directed for long periods of time and can be taken from other parts of the body to produce new nerve cells. The NIH's own researchers have found "an unexpected amount of flexibility in older cells," and are excited because "bone marrow cells taken from a patient's own body would not be rejected by the body's immune system."

Much to the surprise of some scientists, adult stem cells have already shown much more promise than embryonic stem cells. With adult stem cells, scientists can save lives, without compromising their moral integrity. By choosing methods of research which do not rely on the destruction of human lives, we can begin to restore a Culture of Life in our society--one which protects the sanctity of all human life. President Bush and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson will be determining the fate of government-funded embryonic stem cell research within the next few months.

---

So there you have it. Why do we go on setting embryos up to die?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://www.prolife.org.uk/about/keyembryoabuse.htm

Some argue that research on human embryos is harmless because the embryo cannot feel pain at this stage. There is no question of feeling pain so early (though many later abortions are carried out without anaesthetic on babies who can certainly feel pain). But surely it would not be ethical to end the life of a born human being who has been sedated. So the issue is not whether the human embryo can feel pain, but rather, whether the embryo is a human being – that is, a human organism. Since this is scientifically undisputed, we find the “no pain” argument to be fallacious.

Others contend that embryo research is acceptable because it is “in a good cause”. But could we experiment on a born human being at the expense of his/her life if it were for a good cause? The issue is not whether the cause is good, but whether it justifies the means. Experimenters may have good motives, and life-affirming scientific progress is certainly good, but we are not willing to sacrifice the lives of human beings for scientific purposes.

Even with the best intentions and even painlessly, it can never be right to deliberately end an innocent human life, or to use one human being as a guinea pig for the benefit of another.

---

Bipper SMITES! :twak: :hot:

yes we could trial on a human being if he was a mere collection of shapeless cells with thought, mind, pain or emotion and would be dead in 15 days and was made in a petri dish.

You reading any of this?

You are basically saying that an embrio is not human. That is like saying that a child is not human cause the genitaliea has not formed yet, or that they are too short....

Embrios are the begining of a human life - that is UNDENIABLE no matter what you wanna call it. Embryos are not comparable to Toenail fungus, or a pointless glob of emotionless feeling. You can really get into it and compare our emotinos to life events and see where it gets ya - but please read what i type instead of posting a reply seconds after i post. (3 minute difference between our posts)

Bipper

i actually did read it so meh.

"Embryos are not comparable to Toenail fungus" i comapred the amount of human life in them to a toenail. the bacteria thing was about what stage they are in.

i don't think a collection of cells can be called of equal to a human being to which it can save many.

K then that is your perogative. Go kill our race and have a day :mad:
Then you can read my post...
Mabey if we were not busy making these embryo's it wouldnt be a problem. So you are for the cloning/faming of people for organs too huh? must be - or you would be a hypocrate. Its the same thing.. Scientific fact.


Bipper

no because organs are formed in humans that are living.

it is possible to keep any human being alive for ever. you put them on a ventilator or heart and lung machine and they will last forever like that. blood and oxygen continues to pump round the cells and keeps them alive and reproducing. the problem is that the brain is dead. the person is gone and never coming back. they are brain dead. embreyo's don't have brains and so if your brain needs to be alive to classify you as alive then organisms with brains are not.

farming organs would be creating a human with other organs including a brain which would be working. thus making him living.

and i have no problem with killing oher people of my "race" (i'll read it as species to stop any racism problems) if it is embreyo's for human beings not to die.

Quote:

---

and i have no problem with killing oher people of my "race" (i'll read it as species to stop any racism problems) if it is embreyo's for human beings not to die.

---

So humans are magically created huh?
Lets say that you could go back in time and kill my dad so that i was never born and you could think your right... well you kill my father and i am never born.. but minus the killing of my father... you would also be guilty of killing me.

Taking the chance of life away is just as evil as taking the life. Nuff said.

BTW like i say read what i post - educate yourself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Originally Posted by http://texasrighttolife.com/updates/0401.html:
Recently, many problems with embryonic stem cells have surfaced, one being that the results from current research have been moderate at best. The leading corporation which funds embryonic stem cell research, The Geron Corporation, reports that embryonic cells might not be easy to manipulate and that these cells may actually produce tumors or other harmful growths when transplanted into patients.

Meanwhile, pro-abortion groups and the medical community have ignored other available sources of stem cells. Acquiring the cells from adult bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, the scalps of living humans, and even stem cells of recently deceased humans provide alternative, life-affirming research options. These adult stem cells can be controlled and directed for long periods of time and can be taken from other parts of the body to produce new nerve cells. The NIH's own researchers have found "an unexpected amount of flexibility in older cells," and are excited because "bone marrow cells taken from a patient's own body would not be rejected by the body's immune system."

Much to the surprise of some scientists, adult stem cells have already shown much more promise than embryonic stem cells. With adult stem cells, scientists can save lives, without compromising their moral integrity. By choosing methods of research which do not rely on the destruction of human lives, we can begin to restore a Culture of Life in our society--one which protects the sanctity of all human life. President Bush and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson will be determining the fate of government-funded embryonic stem cell research within the next few months.


So there you have it. Why do we go on setting embryos up to die?

---

See it says that A - the sience is not even what it should be for this. and there are a ton of other ways to get it. So it should even be an issue really.

Bipper
Plz read the quote...

"So humans are magically created huh?
Lets say that you could go back in time and kill my dad so that i was never born and you could think your right... well you kill my father and i am never born.. but minus the killing of my father... you would also be guilty of killing me.

Taking the chance of life away is just as evil as taking the life. Nuff said."

so is contraception wrong then?

No - Life was never granted at this point -

but you are taking away the chance of life.

Not chance as in you might impregnate a chick, but if you know that some one was to be born and you stop it.. it is murder. Simple as that.

Now using a condom or other device - i dont think is so bad, as life never could start. The going back it time thing was based onthe fact that you went back and took a life. Time travel is not even feasable anyways. The whole point is if you take a life at anystage - it is murder. no problem there.

If i seen you on the street shot or somthing, I would do everything in my power to help you. I respect you as an individual and a life. I wonder how the scientist can do what they do in the rooms. Like its one thing to say that its ok to kill, but another to do it. I dont think i could kill someone whom i have no quarrel with.

Bipper

the thing with embreyo's is that it has no capability to become life. it is and for 15 days always will be a clump of cells.

I know - but why make them in the first place? Thats what I wanna know. I know for invetro - but that seems selfish to me. Kill three to create one?

if an embreyo has no capability to become life. is it true life at all?

Bipper, I appreciate how adamantly you're fighting this. In fact I'm sorely surprised you're having to do it alone, but I'm glad you're trying to persevere, so really, no hard feelings, before I make another comment.

I think the big problem here is that we as humans value human life above anything else's life. And these things are human cells. Whether or not they can be regarded as a human life is debatable. But I don't think this issue would be even half as sore if we were using something else. Yes it might be able to register pain, but it's not even conciously aware of it at that stage. It can't be. There's no thought process. Its basically the equivalent of an amoeba. And again, if we could use amoebas, we would. But we can't.

And you're right, pro-choice has nothing to do with the subject, which is one of the reasons I flat out said I agree with it instead of labeling myself. But honestly I think in this case pro-choice should be the "parents". Or genetic material donators. I hope they're aware of what their material is being used for anyway.

Honestly I think this is a religious issue as much as it is a moral one. I'm a Christian, but I really don't believe a small cluster of cells has a soul (yet?). And considering their life span, and their life expectancy, I wouldn't be inclined to believe that cluster of cells would, or could ever have a soul. On the other end of the debate: yes, I will agree with you that small cluser of cells is alive. Much like the mice/rats that are tested to benefit us as well. We NEED test subjects to advance medical science. Its just human nature to attempt to defy and/or defend/protect ourselves from our mortality and try to expand and advance as much as we can as long as we can. And thus is the sociality that we can't do our experiments on (fully developed?) humans. But seriously, if that weren't the case, and people volunteered to be tested on, who am I to argue? Again I brush another problem: the embryos never volunteered. Its hard to not be blunt while arguing against this. I respect your stance, but the embryo can't argue against its being used. It can't even comprehend, and I don't believe it has the capacity to even CARE that its being used.

Granted it makes it look like the whole hiding behind the mask thing, where it's not affecting me personally so its easier to shrug it off, but all I can say is that is not it. They're worlds away from each other in my eyes. =/

If someone doesn't have an issue killing someone to save his or her own life, why would he or she have an issue with destroying an embryo to find a cure to save his or her life?

Why have your tax money go towards weapons when you can have it go towards medicine?

Bipper, kudos to you for arguing so galantly. i agree with you on some levels. but not all. i also agree that it is in some ways eiser for me to shrug it off because it doesnt affect me one way or the other.

however i must ask you this: have you ever killed a fly, or spider, or any other "bug?" I can answer this for you because you have and i can be sure of that because you are old enough to have children you have killed at least one "bug" in your life willingly. and that is almost no differnt from what the scientests are doing. in fact, quite bluntly, its worse because the "bug" can fully feel and comprehend pain.

im pro-life in all areas. i dont like that these steam-cells are being killed, but i also dont like that people willfully kill any living thing. but on some levels it is necesary to do. and i cant have any affect over what happens so i just have to have faith that good will come from either side.

These embryos can't and won't ever turn into humans. So what exactly is the problem?

And I'm going to quote peegee's last post because it's good enough to be posted twice:

Quote:

---

An embryo has no conscience, no sentience. And besides this isn't even embryos it's stem cells. They fertilise an egg and start harvesting the genetic factory that comes out of that for stem cells (something like that, right?).

Regardless without any sort of moral law we can remotely apply towards it, it is about as morally wrong as throwing a stone. The reason you may think it matters is because you apply too much meaning to humans -- even their individual cells have the equivalent value as the full human being.

That's not consistent.

---

Quote:

---

If someone doesn't have an issue killing someone to save his or her own life, why would he or she have an issue with destroying an embryo to find a cure to save his or her life?

---

Excellent point Neel. If, say, you were a soldier in a war, and you had to kill another human being to survive, is that okay? Is that really any different than killing of an embryo to save yourself?

In Japan, the United States dropped the Bomb, killing countless people, so that it would save countless American lives. (That's not the only reason, but bear with me here.) If you think that is just, as many people on your side of the argument do, how is that any different than killing off a bunch of stem cells to save a bunch of lives?

A few thing to say yet:

Thanks for realizing my stance and commenting on the work. I am glad to see it is getting read and thought over. Lets just say that life is a very personal issue for me.

It seems that the common concensus is that Embryo's cannot become people? That is odd because it is take from a woman who has been pregnant for up to a month to 2.5 months... Thats a pretty large gap. The idea for the embreo is that it can be inserted into a donor, who is willing to host the child. To me that seems very wrong and selfish. Forgive me for being blunt, but there are many kids who need adoption and would love a chance to live in a family willing to go thorugh so many pains to further itself. To me that would be more sencible than "farming children" I think that phrase sums up my feeling on this quite well.

Ontop of the farming of children, using the ones who are not failures in anyway for research is simply wrong. Like vyk said the choice should be the parents'. Well it isn't its the banks.

Also embryo's have a great shot at becoming a full fledged fetus. They can be implanted into donors, but I think the problem should stop before we have embryos lying around and waiting to die. The research isn't so bad and is feasable (though i am not for it) as the embryo's are doomed wrongly anywayse. That is what I do not like. I would like to see people have more of a respect for human life. It is not a resource that we should abuse. Weather it be in war, or in reasearchl it is just not right to take human life.

Grab a gun and shoot me in the chest... If i do not feel the pain, does that make it ok. Wen you KILL you take away my hopes, dreams, love, pain, hobbies, or anything else I might aquire. You take away my story. These people should not live a 15 day story. That is wrong. Because a person does not have an Identity to our prespective does not strip them of rights.

On the christan prespective, I can't really say weather or not there is a soul there or not. I know the bible speaks out against the subject of abortion, but to find exactly where would require the time i dont have right now. I will look at it though. I know the disrespect for life and demoralization is supposed to happen around the end times - and mabey that is why i fight so hard. I have two children, and I don't want it to end yet. I love life here. I know it is unavoidable and profisized, but I keep hope still.

Please don't kill needlessly. The innocent need not die, the deccadent need conversion... not death.

Bipper
EDITED for Nikotin

Quote:

---

Excellent point Neel. If, say, you were a soldier in a war, and you had to kill another human being to survive, is that okay? Is that really any different than killing of an embryo to save yourself?

---

Yes, that is different. The soilder took his story to that point. Is it fine that he did? The embryo however did not ever get a chance to even make this choice. We had written thier story for em. We should never take such liberties. Just look at the miracle that makes life in the first place... why take such an unknown event for granted?

The attomic bomb was murder at its worst. Why it was dropped i donot wish to discuss in this thread. Obviously, you can't compare war, with people farming. Nice flow though as both do have such disregaurd for life. War is fighting for somthign you belive in. This research is setting up for slaughter to mabey fill a few years in your life.

EDIT2: Nikotin, you look like you like the music. Would you ever take that from someone? The chance to enjoy such a pleasure. Create embryos to be destroyed with out even hear such a great thing as music? Not being able to show another human the characteristics of classical versus baroque? In setting these embryos up, you tease by giving life and taking it instantly. I know we invetro one may have a chance - but look to adoption as a betteer answer than making three so one can live. :cry:

Quote:

---

It seems that the common concensus is that Embryo's cannot become people? That is odd because it is take from a woman who has been pregnant for up to a month to 2.5 months... Thats a pretty large gap. The idea for the embreo is that it can be inserted into a donor, who is willing to host the child. To me that seems very wrong and selfish. Forgive me for being blunt, but there are many kids who need adoption and would love a chance to live in a family willing to go thorugh so many pains to further itself. To me that would be more sencible than "farming children" I think that phrase sums up my feeling on this quite well.

---

We're talking about lab-made embryos made for the purpose of stem cell research. It is not human life until it can live on its on(sometime around the end of the second trimester). Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Embryos, eggs, sperm? I guess condoms should be illegal since that kills 5983734905873094850 sperm. Or maybe the men should be forced to ejaculate into a tube so that all the sperm can be saved to fertilize the next billion or so eggs(enough to keep a woman busy for a while). The entire argument is baseless and absurd.

Quote:

---

Nikotin, you look like you like the music. Would you ever take that from someone?

---

You are the first person at these forums to ever leave me speechless. You've made me question the validity behind what I believe. I don't know my opinion anymore...

Hahahahahahahaha xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Hahahahahahahaha xD

---

You can laugh all you want, but it is an excellent point.

Thank you nik0tine. I am glad my words had an impact for sure. That means _A LOT_ to me on this issue.


[quote] We're talking about lab-made embryos made for the purpose of stem cell research. It is not human life until it can live on its on(sometime around the end of the second trimester). Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Embryos, eggs, sperm? I guess condoms should be illegal since that kills 5983734905873094850 sperm. Or maybe the men should be forced to ejaculate into a tube so that all the sperm can be saved to fertilize the next billion or so eggs(enough to keep a woman busy for a while). The entire argument is baseless and absurd.[\quote]

Please read the thread closly, we did cover controseptives earlier. Wehn you say this argument is absurd i hope you meant the one you were posting? Life is life, rasti. If someone is a vegtable and cannot live on thier own; they are still alive. I hope you never see anyone you care about in that situation.

Also, if you read the thread you will notice that I am really pondering on why it is ok for people to make embryos and line them up for death. But if you position on life is so, demining and selfish, then you will never agree with me. And my demeaning and selfish I simply mean that (at least to me) it seems you are saying if you are not self sufficiant - you are not a life form.

Bipper

The embryos that you speak of are months old. The embryos used for actual research are only days old and don't even have chances of becoming fetuses. At this stage, they are just blastocysts; a cell that is just a cluster of different cells. They can't think past breathing. The fact is that they are not humans yet. They have no organs, limbs, eyes, a nose, a mouth, and most importantly, they have no conscience. They have no families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Do we really want the world to become that selfish? That disrespectful over life – one thing that is still a complete enigma to us. A world where the people are so numb and selfish, that other lives will be take to ensure they live 5 more years?

---

Fully developed humans take precedence over cells. These people actually had lives and have families. One of the diseases that stem cell research can possibly cure is parkinsons. People can go from blabbering, twitching shells of themselves, to speaking and walking humans. Using your argument of comparing a cell to an actual human, you can't compare 5 years to a few days. 5 years to this human's life is 5 years with their grandson. 5 years to this human's life is 5 years with their husband. 5 years to this human is 5 more years to live. 5 days to an embryo is 5 days until its death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somthingbig

The embryos that you speak of are months old. The embryos used for actual research are only days old and don't even have chances of becoming fetuses. At this stage, they are just blastocysts; a cell that is just a cluster of different cells. They can't think past breathing. The fact is that they are not humans yet. They have no organs, limbs, eyes, a nose, a mouth, and most importantly, they have no conscience. They have no families.

---

Quote:

---

Also, if you read the thread you will notice that I am really pondering on why it is ok for people to make embryos and line them up for death. But if you position on life is so, demining and selfish, then you will never agree with me. And my demeaning and selfish I simply mean that (at least to me) it seems you are saying if you are not self sufficiant - you are not a life form.

---

A: ITs disrepsectful to anyone to rip them apart when they are alive. And when they are made in labritories to be ripped aparot - that is an obomination right there. Farming Embryos is just sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomthingBig

Fully developed humans take precedence over cells. These people actually had lives and have families.

---

Using this logic then a baby is not as important as an adult. This is really not the common concessus in a women and children first world. Although I see there may be a difference to children vs embryos - by a few years; either way - it is not ok to kill children for you own self gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomthingBig

One of the diseases that stem cell research can possibly cure is parkinsons

---

if you read an earlier post you will see actuall supported evidence that stem cell research holds no 100% promices and may just as well cause cancers as the cells are not very controlable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomthingBig

5 years to this human is 5 more years to live. 5 days to an embryo is 5 days until its death.

---

That seems not only irrelevant but it is cold as well. Here you admit that the embryo is alive - and you just talk of its death like it is nothing because it knows no relationships. So kill it before it gets to know anyone/thing? That really saddens me.

Prehapse the whole post should be read as there are alot of things being said that have been covered.

My main beliefs are:
1: (The hardes to sway) Embryo's that are currently in banks should not be used as they are doomed anyways :cry: . I feel this is desrespectful and neglagable of the embryos humanity. I understand that this is the hardest to agree with.

2: (Suprisingly blantent) Embryo's should not be made artificially to be killed for research

3: I also disbelive in invetro. Sure it allows those who cant have a child a chance. But at the same time - multiple embryos are made - so that means that more will die than are born (in most cases). IF all the embryos are given a chance and not wasted it isnt as bad imo.

4: I also belive that when a baby is born, or adult dies - they should be able to harves those stemcells as they are actually better - you just cant farm them the way you do embryos.

5: Embryos are life too. I belive that this is on is more widley supported. I belive that all human life deserves respect above all else.


I hope i covered all the bases here:) Thanks for your time. And if you are new to the thread please read the whole thing - there has been a lot of information, and opinions stated here.

Sincerly,
Bipper

"it is not ok to kill children for you own self gain."

this is the main point. these are not children. these are a few cells in pretty much the same form as flu. no shape or form. just a batch of cells. not a child. not with thought or feeling. bacteria don't scream when you bleach the toilet.

they have no chance of ever becoming children either.

they're equavilent is a brain dead human on life support. technically alive. but not really alive in the common sense. no brain function. no pain, emotion or thought. breathes and has a heart beat but isn't really alive.

Quote:

---

they have no chance of ever becoming children either.

---

Why don't they? You need to read my first belief. Yes an embryo can become a child. We don't make them for fun.. unless they are made in a lab to be destroyed. A lot of these embryos are made in labs or left overs from invetro attempts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloud no.9

This is the main point. these are not children. these are a few cells in pretty much the same form as flu. no shape or form. just a batch of cells. not a child. not with thought or feeling. bacteria don't scream when you bleach the toilet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloud no.9

they're equavilent is a brain dead human on life support. technically alive. but not really alive in the common sense. no brain function. no pain, emotion or thought. breathes and has a heart beat but isn't really alive.

---

You can say this all you want and poke at thier present state. Who cares if they feel the pain - you are taking human life - bottome line. It is not that hard to agree with. You even say they are alive, and keep comparing them with the most disgusting things possible. They are our children to be, and should not be "disposed of" in such a horible fasion.
They should be laid to rest with the respect that they deserve. I know that seems a litttle extreme - but they are human life.

Bipper

they don't have a chance because they were created in a lab artificially. and stem cell research will be done with created embreyo's. it's more effecient to industrialize it that way.

at one point we have to turn the life machine off for the brain dead. and if he has been so kind we can cut him open and take out all the useful bits. same thing for embreyo's.

Quote:

---

and if he has been so kind

---

Yes, see he had a choice. Why can we farm humans than speak for the embryos? If i was an embryo and I was made to dye - I would be pissed, and would not allow my innards. Simple as that

Bipper

but if you were embreyo you wouldn't have thought at all. you would have throughout your entire existence been in the same state as a brain dead man on life support.

Prehapse, an embryo cannot make decisions on your scale. But i dont think they want to die. -_- Because they can't think with the nerological system that we do - does not by anymeans give us the right to think for them.


BTW do you have any kids? just a question.

(As read in a book from Alina hospitals and clinics: Pegnancy Birth and Beyond) By 3 weeks they have a nervous system, spine and a brain. Scientific proof. (APPLAUSE) The egg is done with week one when it is fertilized (this is the week of the period basically) as the cells divid into week 2 and three they are considere embryos. So an embryo already has a nerulogical system developing.

There for an embryo does have a nervouse system

THANK YOU!

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomethingBig

What people refuse to realize is that the embryos from which they get the ESCs will eventually die, anyway. These are embryos without families and lives. The life of a person with people who care about them takes precedence over a cell that would die within a matter of days. Many people also refuse to see the possibilities of stem cell research and its benefits. Not only is it a cure for many diseases, it is a potential cure for cancer and HIV and AIDS.

---

WEll as long as the people remain stupid.They will always be to pro life.

I'm for life but I'm also for choice and also.I think that stem cell research will be very beneficial.

---

OK. I'm going to show you exactly what's wrong with that statement and others like it.

Quote:

---

What people refuse to realize is that the [embryos] {random ethnic group} from which they get the ESCs {Body Parts} will eventually die, anyway. These are embryos{random ethnic group} without families and lives. The life of a person with people who care about them takes precedence over a cell that would die within a matter of days. Many people also refuse to see the possibilities of stem cell research and its benefits. Not only is it a cure for many diseases, it is a potential cure for cancer and HIV and AIDS

---

.

The problem is that the only reason that we are considering ESC and not other versions of the same thing (on say the gitmo prisoners), is that we've assigned humans who haven't yet passed through the birth canal as something less than other people. Something that would never be accepted on any other basis. We wouldn't even concider doing research that we knew would harm a person to any other group. You wouldn't look at a kid with a disability and say "gee, lets take out her liver, it could save a life", nor would you say that about an ethnic minority, as in "gee, that Jew/Muslim/Black/Mexican is going to die anyway, lets kill him for research". Life is just as fatal to all of us. All of us are going to die. That doesn't give me the right to my neighbor's life.

And embryos are human. At least until you can point me to a news article in which a pregnant woman gives birth to another animal.

"The problem is that the only reason that we are considering ESC and not other versions of the same thing (on say the gitmo prisoners)"

oh deary deary dear. the person defending the rights of aclump of cells would rather have suspects have medical testing on them. isn't that nice. mengele would be proud of your views. if only gitmo had twins in it then we could have some real fun experiments.

"By 3 weeks they have a nervous system, spine and a brain." but these only last 15 days. not even time for that.

i could kill more cells in these things with a heavy nights drinking.

it's on a teeny tiny scale.

and bipper a word of advice don't use the mengele sympathiser for support. this was a good discussion before someone decided that forced human trials on prisoners (nopt yet found guilty or charged) is a wonderful idea.

it would just taint this topic if you used someone with those views to argue on your side. your bigger than that.

Very well put sir. Thank you for joining in, I definatley appriciate the help and you views.


Bipper

well i tried to stop that....... ah well can't win them all.

Quote:

---

and bipper a word of advice don't use the mengele sympathiser for support. this was a good discussion before someone decided that forced human trials on prisoners (nopt yet found guilty or charged) is a wonderful idea.

---

I started posting before yours went up.. prehapse you can describe to me what you mean here.

Also a complete nervous system by 3 weeks mean that they still have a developing nervous system. The embryo becomes and embryo at about oneweek/two weeks (add 1 week to the time for the the first period week)- so a 3 weeks right there for your youngest embryo. huh weird. The forms before this are blastoid and zygote..

bipper

gnostic yevon there made the comment "The problem is that the only reason that we are considering ESC and not other versions of the same thing (on say the gitmo prisoners)"

the gitmo to what she is referring to is where america holds it's terrorist and "illegal fighter" prisoners. they are held without trial or charge for up to 4 years. you might know it as guantanamo bay or camp x-ray. it has a wealth of informationon the techniques of "persuation" used in it to gain intelligence.

gnostic yevon seems to suggest experimenting on these prisoners. which something mengele did.

jospeh mengele was a surgeon in auschwitz. he had little bits of fun taking children and people who were about to be gassed and performing lovely experiments on them instead. he was not a nice man to say the least.

gnostic yevon and mengele seem to share similiar idealogy.

Quote:

---

Also a complete nervous system by 3 weeks mean that they still have a developing nervous system. The embryo becomes and embryo at about oneweek/two weeks (add 1 week to the time for the the first period week)- so a 3 weeks right there for your youngest embryo. huh weird. The forms before this are blastoid and zygote..

---

All animals have nervous systems. So?

The fact of the matter is that an embryo is not and cannot be considered human at 10-15 days, unless you want to never kill any animal that is similarly or more developed than a 10-day-old embryo and outlaw birth control. It's absurd.

by that line of thought we would have to outlaw all forms of meat products because they are more developed and can also feel the pain. it just wouldnt work.

Quote:

---

All animals have nervous systems. So?

The fact of the matter is that an embryo is not and cannot be considered human at 10-15 days, unless you want to never kill any animal that is similarly or more developed than a 10-day-old embryo and outlaw birth control. It's absurd.

---

I think that comment was absurd - in your twisted way you are saying that humans and animals are the same. While we eat animals, and have for a long time, I am looking mainly at HUMAN life. Even bringing animal life in as a comparison is just-- stupid. Human rights is the issue here... not animal rights.

And yes - a embryo is considered human at 10 - 15 days by scientists and most credible people. There are a few that may not - but the concensus is yea - a embryo/fetus is a person. Eesh.

bipper

I have to disagree that animal life is necessarily lower or unimportant as human life. It may not be equal(different, but not any less lower necessarily) but that doesnt make the point any less valid. You only value human life to that degree, not everyone else does, and thats the problem here. When Embryos are not even going to have that chance to become human, whats the point? Are we going to give it a chance and watch it die when someone else could possibly die if that embryo died?

People die every day(not trying to devalue life itself to anyone, but its true), its either one or the other here. Which is it going to be? Its not like we are stealing embryos from women out there too. But seriously which is it going to be?

Quote:

---

And yes - a embryo is considered human at 10 - 15 days by scientists and most credible people. There are a few that may not - but the concensus is yea - a embryo/fetus is a person. Eesh.

---

May i read this concensus? More than one or even two sources are preferable and probably as unbiased as they can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html

Yet another Stem cell topic for our feeble minds. I'll get quick to the point of where I have a problem with this, and then you guys can discuss.

This is one of the rare times I will agree with Bush. It is in truth that Stem Cell research would be beneficial to the medical world in preventing diseases and providing cures, and Bush's statements against this are that, it is wrong to take human life to save human life, and with it at tax payers dollars.

It is especially true with the second statement of what Bush said. I find it outragous that scientists and doctors want taxpayers to provide cures and such for many diseases, and then once the research for a particular case is completed, pharmacies will go around, take the cure, and sell it off their shelves and make a profit. First, we pay the government to provide us with these cures, and then we ALSO have to buy them? Thats ludicrious!

As for the first statement, that tackles of a more religious background, so I'll keep that area clear if someone else wants it. My mind is open, so discuss your opinions on this

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

gnostic yevon there made the comment "The problem is that the only reason that we are considering ESC and not other versions of the same thing (on say the gitmo prisoners)"

the gitmo to what she is referring to is where america holds it's terrorist and "illegal fighter" prisoners. they are held without trial or charge for up to 4 years. you might know it as guantanamo bay or camp x-ray. it has a wealth of informationon the techniques of "persuation" used in it to gain intelligence.

gnostic yevon seems to suggest experimenting on these prisoners. which something mengele did.

jospeh mengele was a surgeon in auschwitz. he had little bits of fun taking children and people who were about to be gassed and performing lovely experiments on them instead. he was not a nice man to say the least.

gnostic yevon and mengele seem to share similiar idealogy.

---

OK did you miss the part where I said that was WRONG? I said the reason that such a thing was wrong is that the embryo is HUMAN, not an animal or anything else. What I said and that you missed is that doing such things to ANY human is wrong. What I was pointing out is that by conviently forgeting that the embryo is human, it becomes possible to consider doing things to them that no one would consider CONSIDERING if the group was different. I was attempting to show that by showing the situation if it were merely a different group of people we were considering experimenting on in the name of "saving human lives".

Actually, your reaction proves that notion correct. We would never consider this for any other group unless we were outright Nazis. We shouldn't. And changing the group we do such a thing to doesn't change the morality of the situation. If it would be wrong to experiment on Gitmo prisoners, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Disabled people, the poor, etc. Than it is STILL wrong when you speak of embryos. Human is Human.

In related news, Johnathan Smith did not actually think that the solution to poverty in Ireland was to eat Irish children.

Forgive me, for I am new to this, but...
I did an essay on stem cell research and cloning, and I feel that to clone someone is wrong, because then we are going to aim for perfect children, perfect people, and everything that the human race is about, is going to be gone.
It is also very risky, to both the person that is cloned, and the clone itself. Stem cell research, as it is vital to cloning obviously, may be good for finding cures, but is it worth sacrificing so many lives repeatedly, if it seems that we cannot yet find the cure?
Not only that, but to bring life into this world, even if it is by cloning, and then perhaps neglecting that person, can have dire consequences. How would someone feel knowing that their sister is their mother? Or that their parents may have given up a child that they made, and in place chose them?
I hope that you can see where I am going with this...

Quote:

---

I think that comment was absurd - in your twisted way you are saying that humans and animals are the same. While we eat animals, and have for a long time, I am looking mainly at HUMAN life. Even bringing animal life in as a comparison is just-- stupid. Human rights is the issue here... not animal rights.

---

Yes, so am I. However, I'm defining what exactly makes human life better than other animal life. You're not, and expecting it to be self-evident. It's not.

gnostic yevon we knew fine well what you meant. your thoughts on torturing theese prisoners is well documented already. this new turn does not suprise me.

wow...

Here are some thoughts I had while reading this thread...


First off, Bipper, are you a vegetarian? are you an animal rights activist(or less of an activist, but with the same beliefs)?


The world is already overpopulated as it is, but in the name of science I would have to say that the testing should be done. Im not going to argue that they have no chance of life or anything like that, because they do, but so what? I would give my life to save millions if I could, hell, I would do it to save one life. a life for a life is good enough for me. But on the same note, I would kill someone to save someone, or lots of someones.

somewhere way back in the thread someone said something about when the USA bombed Japan. I have to say that was one of the stupidest things this country ever did, if we were really pissed enough to kill, we should have just sent assassins to kill the world leaders. I know, its cold, but its is better to kill a few hundred corrupt men and women, than to kill thousands of inocent people.

I said I was not going to argue that the embreos would have no chance of life and I wont. But there are already enough babies being born to satisfy anyone who wants one.

so there... I suppose that should be enough to satisy my urges to say something for now...

oh, by the way, I believe that everyone on death row or serving a life sentace should be used for scientifical research whether or not they like it, being as they gave away their rights when they got caught doing whatever it is they did. either that or they should all be killed immediatly.

ah yes another fan of mengele. experimenting on prisoners are we? now that's jolly fun. lets torture people for science. yeah cos that's just soooo cool. noone has tried that before.

and so i've worked it out. people. babies are people. i am a person. embreyo's aren't and never will be. maybe thats the thing. it's not about a human link it's about a people link.

Quote:

---

First off, Bipper, are you a vegetarian? are you an animal rights activist(or less of an activist, but with the same beliefs)?

---

Rastilin and IBCrayZ:
No - I love hamburgers. Anyways, I do think that we should respect life. I don't see Animals being on the same level as humans. This is more because I am a christian and have read Genisis. God gives us dominion over animals. But i dont want this thread to turn into a "Your just a dumb christan" or "Animals are people too" thread. Just thought I would clarify. I am in no way a hippie - but there is a balance in life that we should respect.

Ok, lets say that all life is important. Well we need to eat to preserve life right? This means killing animals, vegtables, and fruit seeds. This is for eating. If you say that is wrong then i guess we starve. But to compare apples to oranges and bring this into embryos, I can simply say that we are killing these embryos for a theory - like when you try to make a new resepie - you waste a lot. I guess this mostly balances the equasion expet for on an ethics point of view - which is where the debate is. Eating, and testing are very different though - and no... we should not eat people :love:

Lets just say that I have my reasons for fighting for babies/fetuses/embryos. I will not get into my motivations - I want to keep this thread on the topic.

IBCrayZ: Sounds like your live for self gratification. You even admit that the embryos may live and yet you still dont care. It's very genourous that you would give your life to save millions - but:
A: The science isn't perfect - if you read other posts you will see that labs have actually admited that stem cells are hard to control.
B: Choice. You can make that choice - I also said more on this earlier. If you see embryos as people, and you are not worried to kill off people to your own self gain - that is evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnostic yevon

OK did you miss the part where I said that was WRONG?

---

A lot of people against the issue will read a post with a lot of points - and attack one or two points. Cloud No. 9, definatley debates like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

May i read this concensus? More than one or even two sources are preferable and probably as unbiased as they can be.

---

Most books, sites, or resources you read on the subject will call the person a Human embryo.

lionx: You do serve some good points, however we had covered most of these earlier as well. I don't think a human can shoose to kill another no matter what stage it is at. The bottom line here really is that ther are a lot of better ways to get stem cells - and labs are saying that embryo stem cells dont even work as well as those that adults, and babie's at birth can supply. It just seems like a god awful waste to throw these embryos away. Weather your for it or not - if there is another, better way - shouldn't we look at that? The only reason embryos are even a topic anymore is because they are cheaper - but so is slave labor. (don't tell me to post references to this i did earlier)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnostic yevon

Actually, your reaction proves that notion correct. We would never consider this for any other group unless we were outright Nazis. We shouldn't. And changing the group we do such a thing to doesn't change the morality of the situation. If it would be wrong to experiment on Gitmo prisoners, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Disabled people, the poor, etc. Than it is STILL wrong when you speak of embryos. Human is Human.

---

Very well put. I do agree with your very much. I donot agree with using prisoners who will die though. Don't really want the debate to go that way either though. That would be a nother post.

I almost would like to see a poll made:
do you:
Have children and are for ESC
Do not have children and are for ESC
Have Children and are Agains ESC
Do not have chilren and are against ESC
Do not care either way

I think that would be interesting - but i dont want to do it atm, in risk of thining out the debate. Lets keep it here:) But just post and tell me your opinions.

Cloud No. 9: People and human are about the same thing. I dont think that you can seriously say that embryos and fetuses are not people. That makes no sence to me.

Sorry if this seems to be incoherant - i am very very tired :) But the battle rages on and so must I.
Bipper Battles :sleepy:

i think there is a difference. people can survive on their own. not all human life can. all people have some kind of thought process not all human life does.

Quote:

---

Most books, sites, or resources you read on the subject will call the person a Human embryo.

---

You know just asking...what else do you sugguest they call it then? A Non-human embryo? O_o

You might not think that its ok to kill another whatever stage but people differ, and thats why no one needs to necessarily abhere to everyone else's standards, if they so choose to do what they want they could. While they could find another way this is currently the most viable way to get most people help efficiently. Money is a prime factor in everything, if we find THE perfect way but not affordable, then its better not finding the way at all. Again your life, or the embryos. Which one will have people crying over the most..? Again life while important to us individually is not that important in the grand scheme(to me). If theres no money or fame most of us wont even advance technologically. So it always has to be about money that makes no difference to this either, its part of everything.

Isnt stem cell also making the embryo LIVE? Just inside another body? If you are afraid it devalues the meaning of life then evaluate yourself, only you are making it worth less.

I think we are just making too huge a deal out of this really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

gnostic yevon we knew fine well what you meant. your thoughts on torturing theese prisoners is well documented already. this new turn does not suprise me.

---

Cloud 9, you're extremely dense, so I'm going to type this very slowly so that you can understand it.

I
o p p o s e
r e s e a r c h i n g
o n
G i t m o
P r i s o n e r s.

The point, for the THIRD time is that if it would be wrong to do something to one group of people, it would be wrong to do that something to any group of people. If it is wrong to remove the livers from altzheimer's patients (and thus pretty much kill them), it is wrong to do the same thing to ANY OTHER GROUP of people. I oppose researching on ANY human who wasn't given consent to that specific reasearch being done to them, and even then, only when it is not going to injure them. I oppose the harvesting of organs from one group of people without their permission to give to another group of people. I oppose selling people's corpses for research. Something like this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by www.righttolife.org

Is this legal? Federal law makes it illegal to buy and sell human body parts. But there are loopholes in the law. Here's how one body parts company -- Opening Lines Inc. -- disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: "Turn your patient's decision into something wonderful."

For its buyers, Opening Lines offers "the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it."

Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An "intact trunk" fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law's prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to "perform the harvesting," as well as to "offset [the] clinic's overhead."

Opening Lines further boasted, "Our daily average case volume exceeds 1500 and we serve clinics across the United States."

Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, "a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, 'Got you some good specimens -- twins.'

"I looked at him and said: 'There's something wrong here. They are moving. I can't do this. This is not in my contract.' I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this."

But she did go back and dissect them later. The twins were only the beginning. "It happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, we had live births come back to us. Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead."

---

Now if I were to suggest doing this to anyone else "to provide specimens for research" (WHICH JUST SO CLOUD 9 DOESN'T GET CONFUSED, I'M NOT), you'd call me a Nazi, or anything else along the same lines. What I'll never understand is why the fact that these children (at 30 weeks, you're quite able to survive outside the womb) can be legally killed, and those lucky enough to have made the 1 foot or so trip through the birth canal are magically "persons" and have full legal protections. I just don't see that the process of going through a birth canal does anything to change a human from a "product of conception" to a "person".

"
Isnt stem cell also making the embryo LIVE? Just inside another body? "

No. The type of stem cell research that I am against - makes a test tube baby - then kills it off after about 15 days. All for stem cell sake. It is not even the most cost effective. Honestly, I dont see why it is so popular. The most cost effective would be taking em out of donors and prisioners - but the prisoners can make a stank about it. ITs just easier to kill that which cant speak.

Quote:

---

Again your life, or the embryos. Which one will have people crying over the most..? Again life while important to us individually is not that important in the grand scheme(to me).

---

This means that since I am so much cooler than you (jkin of course) in my opinion - that you should be killed for stem cells.

I know that this is all a debate as well. Some might think that shooting your boss is ok - that doesn't make it right. I think that abortion and embryo farming should be illegalized - there is the dabate. The whole leagal root is weather we should give the fetus/embryo/baby/minor rights.


Cloud no. 9: Your taking me in CIRCLES DUDE ;)! We already coverd this lol.

Gnostic: Sorry bout that - i read your posts - then clouds- made me think you were for the prisoners getting ripped up :)

As far as that goes - i do belive in a womans right to choose... not to have sex. This goes for men too. If you can't hanle the conciquence - dont do it. I really think that the demining value here is that Sex is fun and cool, but babies arnt...
Bipper

next person to call me a girl or lady i will make a personal visit and knee-cap.

Lol - sorry :) I will edit my post :) Just thought- ugh.. :)
Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Quote:

---

First off, Bipper, are you a vegetarian? are you an animal rights activist(or less of an activist, but with the same beliefs)?

---

Rastilin and IBCrayZ:
No - I love hamburgers. Anyways, I do think that we should respect life. I don't see Animals being on the same level as humans. This is more because I am a christian and have read Genisis. God gives us dominion over animals. But i dont want this thread to turn into a "Your just a dumb christan" or "Animals are people too" thread. Just thought I would clarify. I am in no way a hippie - but there is a balance in life that we should respect.

Ok, lets say that all life is important. Well we need to eat to preserve life right? This means killing animals, vegtables, and fruit seeds. This is for eating. If you say that is wrong then i guess we starve. But to compare apples to oranges and bring this into embryos, I can simply say that we are killing these embryos for a theory - like when you try to make a new resepie - you waste a lot. I guess this mostly balances the equasion expet for on an ethics point of view - which is where the debate is. Eating, and testing are very different though - and no... we should not eat people :love:

Lets just say that I have my reasons for fighting for babies/fetuses/embryos. I will not get into my motivations - I want to keep this thread on the topic.

IBCrayZ: Sounds like your live for self gratification. You even admit that the embryos may live and yet you still dont care. It's very genourous that you would give your life to save millions - but:
A: The science isn't perfect - if you read other posts you will see that labs have actually admited that stem cells are hard to control.
B: Choice. You can make that choice - I also said more on this earlier. If you see embryos as people, and you are not worried to kill off people to your own self gain - that is evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnostic yevon

OK did you miss the part where I said that was WRONG?

---

A lot of people against the issue will read a post with a lot of points - and attack one or two points. Cloud No. 9, definatley debates like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

May i read this concensus? More than one or even two sources are preferable and probably as unbiased as they can be.

---

Most books, sites, or resources you read on the subject will call the person a Human embryo.

lionx: You do serve some good points, however we had covered most of these earlier as well. I don't think a human can shoose to kill another no matter what stage it is at. The bottom line here really is that ther are a lot of better ways to get stem cells - and labs are saying that embryo stem cells dont even work as well as those that adults, and babie's at birth can supply. It just seems like a god awful waste to throw these embryos away. Weather your for it or not - if there is another, better way - shouldn't we look at that? The only reason embryos are even a topic anymore is because they are cheaper - but so is slave labor. (don't tell me to post references to this i did earlier)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gnostic yevon

Actually, your reaction proves that notion correct. We would never consider this for any other group unless we were outright Nazis. We shouldn't. And changing the group we do such a thing to doesn't change the morality of the situation. If it would be wrong to experiment on Gitmo prisoners, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Disabled people, the poor, etc. Than it is STILL wrong when you speak of embryos. Human is Human.

---

Very well put. I do agree with your very much. I donot agree with using prisoners who will die though. Don't really want the debate to go that way either though. That would be a nother post.

I almost would like to see a poll made:
do you:
Have children and are for ESC
Do not have children and are for ESC
Have Children and are Agains ESC
Do not have chilren and are against ESC
Do not care either way

I think that would be interesting - but i dont want to do it atm, in risk of thining out the debate. Lets keep it here:) But just post and tell me your opinions.

Cloud No. 9: People and human are about the same thing. I dont think that you can seriously say that embryos and fetuses are not people. That makes no sence to me.

Sorry if this seems to be incoherant - i am very very tired :) But the battle rages on and so must I.
Bipper Battles :sleepy:

---

OK.I agree with what you said in the first paragraph and alot of it in the 2nd. You just sounded like a " oh no, dont shoot the poor deer!" kind of person. but I had to check before I could bring up my next point, which I cant now because it would be irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Lets just say that I have my reasons for fighting for babies/fetuses/embryos. I will not get into my motivations - I want to keep this thread on the topic.

---

Good. You should have reasons and I commend you for standing up for what you believe in.

1. I dont see how I live for self gratification, being as many a human being would do as I would do with life.
2. Youre right. Science isnt perfect. Nothing is perfect. And youre right, there are other possibilities for Stem Cell Research. Adult Stem Cell research is being done and has had good progress. But all options should be looked at. And lets not forget the selling point of ESC, its not that its cheap, its that it can become all cell types. Though ASC has had good progress.
3. I dont see embroys as people, I see them as possible human beings. just like I dont see people and human beings as the samething. humans
are just an advanced lifeform. nothing really special about them except they have an opposable thumb and the capacity to be people. To be civilized. To have emotions and be able to fully understand them. To have developed multiple languages without the help of other beings. To be self-capable.
4. I dont see how it would be my own self-gain. being as I have no disease that could possibly be cured by stem cells as far as I know. I see it as a gain for all humanity, not for me. And I noticed someone else brought up this point prior to me but, if you were in a life/death situation, are you saying you would not kill to stay alive? That every soldier who has had to kill someone else to save themselves, to stay alive, that all of them were evil?

Quote:

---

lionx: You do serve some good points, however we had covered most of these earlier as well. I don't think a human can shoose to kill another no matter what stage it is at.

---

So are you saying that I couldnt not choose to get a gun and kill people at my school, I couldnt. I know you know that is not true, it happens to often, murders. humans choose to kill humans all the time, its an easy choice.

I agree with leaving the prisoner expirementaion for another thread.

And as to your poll, I do not have children and am for ESC, but then again I am only 15.

I think the problem is you hold your morals to other people and think they should follow them. People can do as they like whether they are "wrong" or "right", just consequences follow whether they be deemed good or not to us.

I think the main thing people for stem cell research (of which I am one) are trying to get across is that it's not a person without the ability to think and feel. Without sentience, we are nothing but lifeless husks that resemble a grown human being. The embryos being used for stem cell research have no such intelligence and sentience, and because they are created outside the womb and are never meant to develop the question is should they be afforded human rights. I and others say no since they can't possibly develop into a grown human. That's our feelings about it. As far as we're concerned it's no different than killing bacteria or other basic cellular life forms. For those that think it is human life and should be afforded human rights, that's great. You have your beliefs and stick to them. You're no more right than we are.

And I just have to say it: saying that animal life is below human life is hypocritical. Don't get me wrong, I eat meat and I enjoy it. I accept it as the natural order of the world. Not because we're superior, but because in nature, predators eat other animals, and thanks to our intelligence, we humans are just about as good a predator as they come (even if we really just raise animals for the slaughter now). But if you want to tell me we're better than animals, and that killing embryos is worse then killing a cow or shooting a deer, do me a favor; get a cat, raise it for several years, then tell me if you really think animals don't think and feel similarly to a human. We aren't better than animals in any meaningful way. Most of them think, feel and are sentient just like us. Hell, they even suffer emotional trauma like we do. Any one who's ever had a pet would probably agree.

Let's examine this logically, for a change:

First off, the theory that "human life is sacred." What makes human life better than any other forms of life? It all boils down to our sentience. Now, this doesn't mean that a baby is worthless until it becomes able to think, but that until a baby can live on its own, it is, biologically speaking, nothing more than a tumor. This would logically prohibit "partial birth abortions," as by the third trimester the baby is highly likely to be able to live on its own, outside of the mother. Until that point, objectively, it is a parasite.

The "all human life is sacred" theory. Why is an embryo more alive than sperm? It would biologically be less alive, since sperm has basic instincts and is capable of reactions. Following this line of thought, one must logically conclude that birth control is murder and that all males must ejaculate into a test tube to be able to save all the sperm for future impregnations.

The "all life except that killed for food is sacred" theory. What is eating? An action meant to futher ones own survival. Is there a moral difference between drinking water and eating a deer? No. Is there a moral difference between searching for shelter when its snowing and eating a rabbit? No. Is there a moral difference between attempting to wrap a wound in a bandage and eating a bear? No. Therefore, is there any moral difference between researching a cure to save lives(as long as it doesn't kill other lives - as I've shown in the above two paragraphs that it doesn't) and eating a hamburger? No.

No matter what stand-point you come from, if you think through it logically, there is nothing wrong with stem cell research.

Ok - thanks for the relies all.

ViVi22: It seems that you really like animals - which is great. I do belive very much that animals are and should be important to us and should be respected.. As I said. No I have had dogs (not a huge cat fan sorry ;) ) and I do feel bad when they need to be put down. I know what you mean by animals are just as important as human beings. I don't like eating veil either as I belive that even an animal reared for slaughter should still be given a mature life. Plus as I said earlier - it is my religious belief that we were given domain over animals. I don't expect anyone to share this belief. Note: having domain and being all supreme to the animals is different. Domain could point us as caretakers or slaughters. I see it as caretakers.

There is a lot of sedimental attatchment to pets owed by thier owners. We find ourselves attatched as compasionate human beings. I praise people with pets, and think that they are truly great people to share thier love with animals and to rear a friend out of a "beast". What I wonder - is how those same compasionates, whom have such a regaurd for animal life can disbane human life so easily. Even it they are "just cells". Take that same cat of yours and harvest her eggs- create a cat embryo - and kill it, take a few cells, then throw them in the kitten away. :cry: Does it still seem ok to do so?

Rastilin: Your over intelectual analasis seems great on the surface, but knowlage tells us a different story that the very facts that you have implied:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rastilin

Why is an embryo more alive than sperm? It would biologically be less alive, since sperm has basic instincts and is capable of reactions.

---

embryos do have reactions and feel pain. Sperm are not considered life as they do not fit the scientific criteria for life. Namley reproduction. Science aside, it just doesn't even sound right that a sperm is more alive than the life form it creates with the egg?

Quote:

---

Following this line of thought, one must logically conclude that birth control is murder and that all males must ejaculate into a test tube to be able to save all the sperm for future impregnations.

---

This was already covered as well in an earlier post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rastilin

Is there a moral difference between searching for shelter when its snowing and eating a rabbit? No. Is there a moral difference between attempting to wrap a wound in a bandage and eating a bear?

---

Is there a basis for comparasin? Yes you can eat meat and protect yourself in sensual ways. Then to pull in the last sentance which supposedly vindicates the situation with an "easy answer" is a left fielder really. You sound very intelectual, but the post really doesn't have enough back bone and seems that you give your self too much credit as the last line indicates:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rastilin

No matter what stand-point you come from, if you think through it logically, there is nothing wrong with stem cell research.

---

Have a good day all,

Bipper

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Let's examine this logically, for a change:

First off, the theory that "human life is sacred." What makes human life better than any other forms of life? It all boils down to our sentience. Now, this doesn't mean that a baby is worthless until it becomes able to think, but that until a baby can live on its own, it is, biologically speaking, nothing more than a tumor. This would logically prohibit "partial birth abortions," as by the third trimester the baby is highly likely to be able to live on its own, outside of the mother. Until that point, objectively, it is a parasite. .

---

Well, the problem with this is pretty simple. To follow this logic to its conclusion, if a person were to become dependant on others, his life has no "sacredness" anymore. What you are argueing in favor of is a utilatarian view of human lives. This leads to a lot of problems.

First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.

So you see, rationally, if the embryo/fetus has no value as a human, neither do the others I mentioned. So to be logically consistant, under this view, you must also allow for the "post-birth abortions" of the groups I mentioned above. That doesn't happen though. We protect the disabled, newborns, and the elderly.

Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.

Now for the parasite issue. Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.

It seems pretty irrational to suggest that a fetus at 20 weeks is "not a person", when the same being, if it was born prematurely, would be a "person". If a woman were to kill a premature baby at 20 weeks gestation, she would be charged with murder. If she goes to Planned Parenthood, a fetus at the exact same age can be legally killed. That would be similar to saying that people who live in New York can be killed at will, while people living in any other area are protected. It isn't rational to base a person's "worth" based on location.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

The "all human life is sacred" theory. Why is an embryo more alive than sperm? It would biologically be less alive, since sperm has basic instincts and is capable of reactions. Following this line of thought, one must logically conclude that birth control is murder and that all males must ejaculate into a test tube to be able to save all the sperm for future impregnations. .

---

No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

No matter what stand-point you come from, if you think through it logically, there is nothing wrong with stem cell research.

---

No, there are are very good reasons to object to stem cell research. embryos are completely distinct being from their mother, and are therefore human. Like millions of other humans, they depend on others for care and protection. The reason that ESC research is acceptable is that embryos have been defined as nonhumans. They are still humans, and deserve the same protections as any other humans. Unless you are willing to take the position that it is perfectly acceptable to kill human beings for research, it is irrational to say that ESC research is acceptable.

What you are relying on is an external definition of human, which can (and has) be altered to whatever the society decides it should be. This is irrational because it isn't based on anything other than what your society feels is right, not based on a principle that can be applied consistantly. The human that is considered human today may not be considered so tomarrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Let's examine this logically, for a change:

First off, the theory that "human life is sacred." What makes human life better than any other forms of life? It all boils down to our sentience. Now, this doesn't mean that a baby is worthless until it becomes able to think, but that until a baby can live on its own, it is, biologically speaking, nothing more than a tumor. This would logically prohibit "partial birth abortions," as by the third trimester the baby is highly likely to be able to live on its own, outside of the mother. Until that point, objectively, it is a parasite. .

---

Well, the problem with this is pretty simple. To follow this logic to its conclusion, if a person were to become dependant on others, his life has no "sacredness" anymore. What you are argueing in favor of is a utilatarian view of human lives. This leads to a lot of problems.

First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.

So you see, rationally, if the embryo/fetus has no value as a human, neither do the others I mentioned. So to be logically consistant, under this view, you must also allow for the "post-birth abortions" of the groups I mentioned above. That doesn't happen though. We protect the disabled, newborns, and the elderly.

Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.

Now for the parasite issue. Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.

It seems pretty irrational to suggest that a fetus at 20 weeks is "not a person", when the same being, if it was born prematurely, would be a "person". If a woman were to kill a premature baby at 20 weeks gestation, she would be charged with murder. If she goes to Planned Parenthood, a fetus at the exact same age can be legally killed. That would be similar to saying that people who live in New York can be killed at will, while people living in any other area are protected. It isn't rational to base a person's "worth" based on location.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

The "all human life is sacred" theory. Why is an embryo more alive than sperm? It would biologically be less alive, since sperm has basic instincts and is capable of reactions. Following this line of thought, one must logically conclude that birth control is murder and that all males must ejaculate into a test tube to be able to save all the sperm for future impregnations. .

---

No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

No matter what stand-point you come from, if you think through it logically, there is nothing wrong with stem cell research.

---

No, there are are very good reasons to object to stem cell research. embryos are completely distinct being from their mother, and are therefore human. Like millions of other humans, they depend on others for care and protection. The reason that ESC research is acceptable is that embryos have been defined as nonhumans. They are still humans, and deserve the same protections as any other humans. Unless you are willing to take the position that it is perfectly acceptable to kill human beings for research, it is irrational to say that ESC research is acceptable.

What you are relying on is an external definition of human, which can (and has) be altered to whatever the society decides it should be. This is irrational because it isn't based on anything other than what your society feels is right, not based on a principle that can be applied consistantly. The human that is considered human today may not be considered so tomarrow.

---

Excellent points.

Anyway, while I believe that embryonic stem-cell use is morally wrong, I'll skip over that at least until someone has answered Gnostic Yevon's post above. In the meantime, I'll focus on the practical aspects of the situation. Is anyone wondering why the researchers working on embryonic stem-cells are asking for government money when there are all those private investors out there? The reason is that private investors want nothing to do with embryonic stem-cell use, and not just because of the moral problems. Embryonic stem-cell research has been nothing more than a long line of failures. "Theoretically", embryonic stem-cells are more versatile and useful than adult stem-cells. Yet the only successful stem-cell work has been with adult stem-cells. Still, the scientists working on the problem stick with their theories and try again and again to get embryonic stem-cells to work. Why do they do this, do you ask? Basically because they are looking for an excuse to make abortion more acceptable. If they actually cared about what they claim they care about (the results of their research), they would have followed the advice of their 2nd grade science teachers and changed their theories when every test they've done has proven them wrong.

Quote:

---

I think the problem is you hold your morals to other people and think they should follow them. People can do as they like whether they are "wrong" or "right", just consequences follow whether they be deemed good or not to us.

---

Yes - i think killing is bad. I can't jsut say "Oh gee, Killing is bad, but since he is doing what is right by him i think it is ok"


Gnostic and Sky, thanks for the support- Come very well written posts both informational. Thank you for keeping the debate around what has been said, and taking the time to write complete posts.
Bipper

Quote:

---

First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.

---

This is a bad example because they can do one simple thing - think for themselves. Our physical ability is not what makes humans better than other animals.

Quote:

---

Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.

---

I don't understand this point. When HIV infects a cell, it uses the cell's DNA to create new virus DNA, which then becomes "unique." So smurfing what?

Quote:

---

Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.

---

Yes, which brings about a crucial analogy: they are parasites by the choice of the giver. The giver can stop paying for her mentally handicapped uncle's food anytime, because it's HER money, and her life. Therefore, logically, the giver in a pregnancy should be able to stop giving of her life at any point.

So even if you accept the absurd relationship between the physically handicapped and fetuses, it still doesn't work.

Quote:

---

No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.

---

And what makes being a human special and valuable? Again, back to that. I define it objectively - you don't.

Yet again more complete bull. There is no logical, objective way to justify such nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.

---

This is a bad example because they can do one simple thing - think for themselves. Our physical ability is not what makes humans better than other animals.

Quote:

---

Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.

---

I don't understand this point. When HIV infects a cell, it uses the cell's DNA to create new virus DNA, which then becomes "unique." So smurfing what?

Quote:

---

Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.

---

Yes, which brings about a crucial analogy: they are parasites by the choice of the giver. The giver can stop paying for her mentally handicapped uncle's food anytime, because it's HER money, and her life. Therefore, logically, the giver in a pregnancy should be able to stop giving of her life at any point.

So even if you accept the absurd relationship between the physically handicapped and fetuses, it still doesn't work.

Quote:

---

No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.

---

And what makes being a human special and valuable? Again, back to that. I define it objectively - you don't.

Yet again more complete bull. There is no logical, objective way to justify such nonsense.

---

Nothing at all makes being a human being special. So go shoot yourself in the head and rid the world of your egocentric, stuck-up attitude. Oh, wait, YOUR being a human IS special, right?

At least the embryo has a chance to grow into a contributing member of society.

No human is any more special than the other(what makes its special is completely man-made), that doesnt mean we go out and kill ourselves, no one needs to be special to live. I agree with Rast to the point that if you consider an embryo to be human enough, where does it end? Egg and sperm too?

All i know is that theres many different viewpoints, but i still say that since its most likely going to not be human or live long, better to save those that already are in trouble. That and i cannot imagine myself living thinking i am born from a lab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionx

No human is any more special than the other(what makes its special is completely man-made), that doesnt mean we go out and kill ourselves, no one needs to be special to live. I agree with Rast to the point that if you consider an embryo to be human enough, where does it end? Egg and sperm too?

All i know is that theres many different viewpoints, but i still say that since its most likely going to not be human or live long, better to save those that already are in trouble. That and i cannot imagine myself living thinking i am born from a lab.

---

Actually, it stops at the point that it has completely seperate human DNA.

Yeah, if you kill it it is not likely to live long. Surprising how that works.

Also, despite previous complaints, the embryos are there by choice as well. If you didn't want them, you shouldn't have been having sex. You might be surprised at how well abstinence works at preventing pregnancy.

Also, unlike the parasites referred to earlier, the embryo is there for a limited time. It'll be over in about 9 months, and then you can put the child up for adoption. You knew that there was a risk that pregnancy would be a result of having sex. You chose to have sex anyway. Live with the consequences of your actions.

Putting kids up for adoption seems quite irresponsible not only in having sex but the care of the child too. I am pretty sure that while they could put it up for adoption, they also dont have to abhere and might actually donate the embryo if they so wish, no one can stop that really. Plus this has NOTHING to do with having sex itself, more of a couple that cannot conceive without going to a fertility clinic.

Quote:

---

Stem cells can be extracted from very young human embryos -- typically from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures at fertility clinics. There are currently about 100,000 surplus embryos in storage.

---

http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm

Lots of surplus embryos only. Mixed sources say that they can either stay usable for long while, or they arent able to be used soon after. Either way you cant keep all those embryos there, sure you can store them, but eventually if theres more donors than people wanting babies then it will overflow. That, and are we also to keep them and hope maybe there is a chance they will be used? They could stay in the tank forever while someone is dying a slow agonzing disease.

Quote:

---

Those embryos that are not preserved in liquid nitrogen will inevitably die. They have no chance of living or developing into a newborn. Many clinics simply discard or destroy them. Some embryos are simply flushed down a sink drain while alive. Some are transferred to a medical waste bin where they are later incinerated, while alive. Some simply expose the embryos to the air and let them die naturally; this normally takes up to four days. Still other embryos are donated for research and experimentation, for personnel training, or for diagnostic purposes. At this stage in their development, they fortunately have no brain, no central nervous system, no pain sensors, no consciousness, no awareness of their environment. Thus, no matter by which method they are disposed, they will feel no discomfort.

---

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_inco.htm

As stated here there is no chance of them living should there be excess embryos and/or theres no storage or whatever. Many embryos die needlessly every day, so we are to just let that happen? Or maybe we can actually use the embryos that are going to be disposed of anyway, to something that can used? That and they cant feel pain.

If you want to question the source you can, i just find it to be..a little less biased i guess. If you can provide other sources i will look at them.

Yea, there's not a moral issue with embryonic stem cells any more than there is issue with sperm banks and fertilization clinics. using leftover stem cells for research is just finding a more efficient use for what would otherwise just be waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

First,the severely disabled people aren't independant. Most of them require care for their entire lives (either from nurses or an institution). They are usually brain-injured, which would lessen their sentience quite a bit. Wouldn't that make such a person "a parasite" as well? You could say the same about other people at different stages of life. Newborn babies are the same way, and if anything more dependant than a disabled person. Then there's the elderly, who once again rely on others for practically everything.

---

This is a bad example because they can do one simple thing - think for themselves. Our physical ability is not what makes humans better than other animals.

---

Not really. Altheimers patients aren't very sentient. Newborn babies can't think for themselves at all. And you still have the same problem. What is the cutoff for "thinking?" What IQ level do I need to have in order to be considered a human? If it's an IQ of 5, then what about a person scoring a 4 or a 3? And I'm not even sure how you'd measure the intelligence of a fetus. The growth of a fetus is continuous. What may have been true of a fetus or a newborn 10 minutes ago may no longer be true.

The point being that in order to have an embryo or fetus not be a human, you must use some artificial cut off -- living in the Uterus, arbitrary IQ level, etc. The problem with an arbitrary cut-off is that it can be changed. If I can set the IQ at 5, why couldn't someone come up later and say "Naah, 5 is too low. let's double it to ten". Or change the test from "thinking" (which is nebulous and hard to measure) to "speaking"?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Secondly the embryo is not a tumor or a parasite. A tumor would be a lump of the woman's own tissues growing out of control. The embryo isn't her tissue at all. From the moment the sperm joins the egg, it is unique. And I can prove this to you without complex science. If the embryo were simply the mother's tissue (as it would be in a tumor), then there would be no human males. In fact every person born would look extremely similar. So I think the tumor analogy is pretty much false.

---

I don't understand this point. When HIV infects a cell, it uses the cell's DNA to create new virus DNA, which then becomes "unique." So smurfing what?

---

The virus isn't a new human. The baby is not only not its mother's tissue, but a new human individual. The point is that you can't justify abortion by saying that it's like a tumor, because it isn't a tumor. It's a developing human individual. This argument is apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, the embryo does live parasitically off of the nutrients in its mothers blood. But other humans (as I showed above) are just as parasitic. The main difference is that in the case of the disabled or the newborns, or the eldarly, they have their needs supplied externaly rather than by attachment to a uterus. In fact, the distinction doesn't seem to come from a developmental stage in current practice. It comes from other things, a big one being the location of the being in question.

---

Yes, which brings about a crucial analogy: they are parasites by the choice of the giver. The giver can stop paying for her mentally handicapped uncle's food anytime, because it's HER money, and her life. Therefore, logically, the giver in a pregnancy should be able to stop giving of her life at any point.

So even if you accept the absurd relationship between the physically handicapped and fetuses, it still doesn't work.

---

What happens to a mother who suddenly decides to stop feeding her baby? She gets charged with child neglect and child endangerment. She loses custody of said newborn (and usually loses any other children in her care). In other words the state protects newborns (and handicapped, and the elderly). It isn't as though a mother can walk away without caring for her children and have no consequences.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, the embryo as I pointed out above is biologically distinct from both father and mother. That isn't true of the sperm or the egg. A sperm or egg is a specialized cell that is produced by the human body, similar to a skin cell. The embryo is completely separate. It isn't valueable because it has thought or instinct, it's valueable because it's human.

---

And what makes being a human special and valuable? Again, back to that. I define it objectively - you don't.

---

Fine then, if human life isn't special, then at least be consistant and remove legal protections for everyone. But as the abortion issue is right now, the embryos have no protections at all, while other groups in very similar circumstances are protected.

I suppose this is where our philosophies part. I assume that a human is valuable until it is proven not to be.

Quote:

---

Yet again more complete bull. There is no logical, objective way to justify such nonsense.

---

But as I've pointed out, you aren't being logical and objective. Your definitions are arbitrary. Drawing an arbitrary line and saying at this point the embryo is worthy of protection isn't logical, because there is nothing special in that second of the embryos life. Another person could pick a different threshold for personhood, and it would be no more or less logical than the one that you've picked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

Not really. Altheimers patients aren't very sentient. Newborn babies can't think for themselves at all. And you still have the same problem.

---

But those are actual individuals, whereas a fetus is only a potential. A fetus is not actual human life, no matter which way you see it. Clearly, the closer the potential gets to the actual means the more restrictions that can be put on what one can do with the potential, but it is still a potential.

Quote:

---

The virus isn't a new human. The baby is not only not its mother's tissue, but a new human individual.

---

No, it isn't. It's pretty much a part of the mother's body. You can justify abortion because an embryo has no rights.

Quote:

---

What happens to a mother who suddenly decides to stop feeding her baby? She gets charged with child neglect and child endangerment. She loses custody of said newborn (and usually loses any other children in her care). In other words the state protects newborns (and handicapped, and the elderly). It isn't as though a mother can walk away without caring for her children and have no consequences.

---

The law protects newborns because they are an individual, actual being. They are not an embryo.

Quote:

---

I suppose this is where our philosophies part. I assume that a human is valuable until it is proven not to be.

---

I do, too, to let you know. I value the mother's choice (and really, there is no life without choice), and to make abortions illegal is to promote nothing but sadness and misery - an unwanted pregnancy is just bad at all rounds - for the parents who don't want the child and is sacrificing their life for it, and for the child who is unloved and unwanted.

This is much like the firearms debate. People can jump at a chance to make them illegal, but honestly, we can't - that would be so beyond anti-freedom I'm scared to think of a world where I can't own a gun. However, we can debate the rules of owning a gun, where to carry it to, which weapons, etc.

Likewise, the abortion debate is similar. Abortion is not immoral. To follow the same logic, then all surgery should be outlawed. Human life starts at birth - before that, it is only a potential life. If you want to, we can define the rules of abortion (for example, I am highly against third-trimester abortions, for obvious reasons), but to deny the woman a right to her body is to perpetuate misery.

As for the topic at hand (stem cell research), I suppose you can gather my argument there.

Woa though this was Closed?

Facts aside a moment lets look at sediment:

To me it sems inhuman to say "Well they never came out - so lets rip em apart"

Seems to me we are jsut takeing life for granted. WE take almost everything for granted. You buy a pond of beef and set it out to make burgers later - you forget about it and toss it the next day. I do it, and I know most of us do. I do think that even that small act is pretty disrespectful. Can yo aggree that that is wastful?

With alot of these "left over embryos" (where they come from is my main case - not that they use em) People make several embryos for envitro - the make three children lets say, and kill two. Well its the same thing as leaving a pound of burger out (metephoracly).

Then the lab created embryos seem just inhumane up and down. I don't see the benefit of possible getting a cure outta killing all of these embryos, being worth the possablility of being so vile. It is easy of course to say "Hell I might live longer - they aren't alive anways" than to do a google search look at all these pics of embryos; then look at how excited parents are when there child is just a month after conception - and just say or think... You know... if i killed that embryo -- I have a 1 in a million chance of living longer...

I just really wonder how many folks are for embryo research and have children. I mean, I was ESTATIC the first month my kids were concepted - the antisipation of finding out etc. From day one most parents are just dumbfounded; then to turn on the tube and see this being done ... It just wracks ya.

Peace and Serentiy
Bipper

would you be willing to tell a 7 year old kid with leukhemia "yeah we could have found a cure but we didn't want to hurt the little embryo's. you have 3 months left. sucks for you."

How about "we could've manipulated your own stem cells into a cure, but we're too busy trying to find a good excuse to kill babies, so you're out of luck. You have 3 months to live. Sorry."

When a childs life ends, it is tragic.
Children should never die.
When they do you feel that thier fates never gave them the chance to fall in love, experience graduation, thier wedding, and even getting thier license. So many children are cursed with dying young. While this is obviously bad, what about when a embryo is blessed with life and given all of those promices, just to have them reaped away.

To kill any fetal or embryo to me is harsh - farming them even worse. I would like to see more respect for life all around. It is the ultimate gift that we just do not respect as much as we should. Does this reflect our warish times, our selfish life styles, or a lack in religous faith?

bipper

Quote:

---

people should not be forced to fund anything, especially something they don't agree with.

---

Does this mean my taxes shouldn't have to go to the military? 'cause god knows I don't support the war in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Taking the chance of life away is just as evil as taking the life. Nuff said.

---

So a condom s the moral equivalent of murder?

can we not call abortion and the like the death penalty for the original sin?

DarkLadyNyara: I do think that military expence is important because it involves your countries defence etc. I am against offencive wars that are fueled by simple greed and such. Defending yourself from a threat of invading enemies by buying a few tanks and such is fine imo. I do find creating embryos in a lab to rip em up is a bit of a different story. Defending against a human threat where people are physically attacking you, and defending against cancer and such at the expence of innocent life is just uncalled for.

Quote:

---

can we not call abortion and the like the death penalty for the original sin?

---

I agree Killing a fetus and/or embryo of anysort is ineed killing human life. But the leagallity of the situation does not agree much with me.
Bipper