Here's a little more food for thought... If God had not wanted us to use the stem cells and other somewhat questionable things that science has found why did he allow men to find them in the first place?
Printable View
Here's a little more food for thought... If God had not wanted us to use the stem cells and other somewhat questionable things that science has found why did he allow men to find them in the first place?
Yea, Im down with stem cell research. But I see some peoples point. But I think if it really helps it should be allowed. I am reminded of an add I saw once:
"The good news is we found a cure/treatment for many of the diseases in the world and it can all be achived by a single plant. The bad news is the plants illegal." -- something like that, and Im sure you can all figure out what plant without me telling you. Not 100% related to this but kindof
You know, ***** the pro-lifers, ***** the religious right. Do what you want to save yer life and a loved ones life. No one has the right to tell you that you cannot cure and save your life or your loved ones. Damned if I would ALLOW that to happen to John or myself. I would go to another country and have it done and be more than willing to give up my US citizenship because that sure as hell isnt as important as curing a loved ones life. Lives being lost only because of some peoples retarded opinions is not acceptable, sure as hell isnt acceptable on my end. Like Chris Reeves said: put yourself in his shoes for only an hour and you would see what its like, just ONE hour and times that by thousands.
Brad
These so called "pro-lifers" are so damn smug, aren't they? You cripple them, or God forbid, their children and watch them turn on a dime! It's better to throw something in the trash then use it to save someone's life, or quality of life, just on a principle. What the hell kind of principle is that?!?!?
Yea, they (pro-lifers) are even against emergancy contraception (the morning after pill) this pill will (most likly) stop you from becomming pregnat if you take it the morning after intercourse. Affectivly stoping abortion (the real issue they are against, but again i think right to choice is the way to go) So they are against abortion they are against the morning after pill that will stop people from needing abortion, and by the way the morning after pill takes care of it before it forms into a living or growing being, so its not even life yet. Also many pharmacists in certain areas will refuse the sale of this pill to people. ( and thats legal? I dont get that).
It all comes down to one thing. Politics, everyone has an opinion about something and they dont care about whats better for the person , whats better for the child all they care about is their veiw is the one that turns law and it magically becomes correct.
I dont know, I cant really explain it
They wouldn't be throwing them away if they weren't irresponsiblyQuote:
I feel it's more disgusting that these embryos are just thrown away than the fact that people want to use them for research.
creating them in the first place. The analogy would be if the nazis justified
experimenting on concentration camp inmates by saying "These jews
are going to die anyway, so why let their bodies go to waste"
Many people argue that the world is overpopulated, and yet they will
go to such extraordinary means to treat rich couples in privileged
countries like the USA for infertility
Most of the embryos that we're arguing about are created by these infertility
treatments. They create and waste thousands of embryos to enable
people to have one child.
Just because a procedure is feasible, that does not make it ethical
Would you draw the ethical line if the embryos were allowed to mature so that we could
harvest their organs? At what stage of development do you aquire legal "personhood"?
Apparently, the present legal doctrine is that you become a legal person "at birth",
but eventually we will be able to raise embryos outside the human body. This suggests
the possibility that there could eventually be created, a class of human beings,
fertilized and gestated totally outside a "womb" and therefore enjoying no
legal "right to life"
The "right to life" may sound like an abstraction and an inconvenience when
you greedily desire to enjoy the fruits of research, but if the research is illicit
it could come back to haunt you.
William BuroughsQuote:
The title means exactly what the words say: NAKED lunch---a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every Fork
:cool:
I agree with you DoktorFoobar.. most people will change their befeifs just as soon as something happens to them... Example: Christmas 1999 While working as a paramedic I ran a call to a house where a 1 year old child was in cardiac arrest... The child was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead... We found out later that the child had been sick for a few days before he had died the same was true of his 5 brothers and sisters... All the children had the same symptoms and presented with the same complaints.... Now what does this have to do with people changing their beleifs you ask? The family were Christen Scientists... Those folks that do not beleive in any form of medical treatment other then prayer... Their beliefs caused the death of one of their children and to prevent the death of any more they abandoned those beliefs... All of you who are bashing those of us for beleiving that it is ok to use stem cells to save a loved one ask yourself one question... If you could save your child, wife, lover, mother, etc by using the stem cells of an unborn embryo that was going to thrown into the furnace anyway would you do it or would you explain to your six year old that there was a way to save his life but because you feel it is wrong you are going to let them die because that embryo is more important then he or she is?
I for one would use as many embryos as it took to save my children... I would give my life if I knew it would save my child... But then again I love my children... Neg away )D
Ok, I can't stand it anymore.......grrrrrr......I have to reply....I wanted to keep silent....LOL...oh well..... 4midgethitmen, I agree with what you say. Let me just point out the other side for a second.....I always say that there are three sides to a coin, each face and the edge :) In this case, it is the pro-lifers, the pro-abortionists, and the middle ground. Just to point out where the pro-lifers come from on this issue (I am pro-life, but I have more liberal views) they say that life begins at conception whether or not it is in a tube or in the mother. That is why they see it as murder. Me, on the other hand, I see an embryo in a test tube as a piece of living tissue. I do believe that there is a point (only God knows when) when the embryo becomes a viable human life. However, I am not arguing that point. I feel that in the embryo stage, that it is no more than living cells in a person's body. At that point, I say, go ahead and use it to help. I would be the first to line up to allow stem cell research to save the life of any of my family. I believe in saving lives. Other pro-lifers may disagree with me. That is their right. Like I said in my earlier post, an embryo in a test tube is different than an embryo in the mother. That is where I draw the distinction. If I can help create an embryo in a test tube to save a life, then I will be more than happy to do so.
Just a comment on the god argument: there's no God,
so "playing God" is absurd.
This thread is very interesting. I am especially pleased with the posts that have remained calm and discussive over those that are inflammatory. Both sides have presented excellent arguments.
Let me get a couple of things out of the way first. Carbonlife, your statement that there is no God therefore the argument about playing God is wrong has no more basis in fact than my saying there is a God. You believe there is no God, that is your choice. I believe there is a God, time will prove which of us is right since there is no way to prove an absolute such as "God". However you cannot prove a negative absolute either.
Second the day after pill is considered bad by Pro-lifers because it is an abortifacient. If life begins at contraception then any abortifacient is still an abortion. The day after pill merely relieves the person of the guilt of choosing an abortion not of the fact they have caused one. Personally I believe the pill should be standardly used in cases of rape and incest to prevent the victim from facing further psychological trauma from an already devastating crime. However in other cases I am opposed to it on moral grounds. I am not opposed to contraceptive methods that prevent fertilization (condoms etc.) only those that are abortifacients.
This issue is so difficult because it hits right in the center of two contraversial belief systems. The one is the furtherance of medical research. The second is the belief that life begins at conception and that killing that life is as bad as or worse than killing an adult.
Much of the controversy with stem cell research is related to the continuing search for new strains not the use of existing ones. Once the stems cells are harvested and a strain developed they can be replicated without viable embryos. However the push is to increase the number of viable strains (if I remember right now there are 11 or so viable ones and less than 50 that may develop into viable strains). To create new viable strains requires the use of embryos that have passed a short period of growth but have not reached the fetal stage. The stem cells themselves are most active and pure then because these cells are what are used in the development process to determine what will become nerves, muscle, bone etc.
My dilemna is that I would love to see people who have faced trauma be cured. I believe that the damage of creating the current viable strains has been done and they should be used to seek cures. Just like the research done by the Nazi's we would not be doing the Jews who were tortured and killed any service by refusing to use the research to better the lives of others. However, if we were to look at that research and then justify its methods we are no better than the Nazi's.
The question was asked if I would prefer to give my life to save thousands or just have it thrown away. I have always been clear that I believe the best death I could ever face would be saving a child from a burning buiding right before a beam crushed me, killing me instantly and painlessly. Did I mention the camera that caught the entire scene and my news flash on CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC? Saving a life, dieing painlessly, and my 15 minutes of fame. I would like to believe I would be willing to sacrifice myself for thousands as well. The difference is I am making the decision. I have the ability to reason and understand the results and ramifications of my decision and sacrifice. In our society we recognize that those who are not able to reason are not held to the same standards as those that can. Embryos cannot reason, they cannot choose, you cannot ask them for their permission to sacrifice themselves. Even children cannot understand the permanency of death until a fairly late age unless they are exposed to it through tragedy.
So where do I stand on stem cell research. Two things, use the current strains as long as it does not require the sacrifice of more children (remember I believe in life at conception when all of the genetic code is available so it doen't matter if it is in the mother or the test tube). If further strains can be developed from abortions, ektopic pregnancies, etc. then I don't have a problem with that. Why, well because it is like others have said, the embryo is going to be killed anyway. With ektopic pregnancies the embryo has no chance and the mother's life is endangered. In this case I consider this the same as harvesting organs by donors if the family approves (I am proud to be an organ donor but feel sorry for whoever gets my abused organs). As for abortions it is the act of abortion that is wrong, IMO, not the harvesting of useful materials after the abortion. I would consider it wrong to encourage abortion to get stem cells however if someone came in to have an abortion I think it would be justifiable to ask them to sign a donor permit for the aborted child. In this manner new strains could be developed however not as quickly as with unrestricted development.
I believe this is one part of the edge of the coin mentioned. While I am totally opposed to abortion, while it is legal I do not see why using the victims is any worse than using the results from immoral research perpetrated by an evil regime is any different.
One thing I would like to say to everyone who has blasted the Pro-lifers. Can you remember the uproar, which continues, about animal testing. According to most articles if you supported animal testing you were barbaric and evil because animals could not defend themselves and had no choice. It was considered torture to use animals for research so that humans didn't suffer. However, it could be proven that animal testing helped develop many cures and tested many drugs that made them safer to move into the arena of human testing. Even in its least defensible arena (cosmetic and commodity testing) it helped ensure that products were safer to use. Honestly I support using animals for testing (medical only) to ensure as little suffering for humans. However, why am I now being called the same thing (inhumane and evil) because I feel it is right to protect children who also are defenseless.