Bush losing Stem Cell battle

[herbie08]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[bipper]

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

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

[Itsunari 2000]

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

[Cloud No.9]

"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.

[bipper]

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

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[bipper]

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

[Cloud No.9]

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

[bipper]

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

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Raistlin]

*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).

[Vyk]

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.

[nik0tine]

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.

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?

what??

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'?

[Peegee]

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.