Stem cell research, should ethics come in to it?

[notoppings]

I was watching The Family Guy the other night and Peter Griffin had a stroke and was cured by stem cell therapy, I am also reading Michael Crichton's book "Next" a story about stem cell research and gene augmentation. The question I seem to have is what is wrong with stem cell research? If it's legal to have an abortion and those fetus's are used to further mans knowledge and advance medicine how is this wrong? They are not killing babies they are using aborted fetal tissue, I'm sure that there are some who have strong opinions on this so show me the errors of my ways.

All I can think is if I had alzheimers or was a victim of stroke how grateful I would be for this type of cure.

[Mozzes]

Basically the people who wield legislative and executive powers in America don't understand dick about science. Oh, and they're afraid embryonic stem cell research will be used to pursue human cloning. So, preventative legislation, I guess? A huge crock of shit as far as I'm concerned.

Mainly our politicians are just idiots and don't realize they're only causing us to fall behind the rest of the international community in biological research because, you know, if it's illegal in America surely everybody else is going to follow our lead. :rolleyes:

[thod]

You dont even have to extract them from a fetus. You can get them from used umbilical cords too. Its got nothing to do with research ofc its all about religion.

It doesn't matter one way or the other if the US bans it. The same research is going on in other countries and they will build the companies to exploit any breakthroughs.

There was that recent stuff with them putting a human skin cell nucleus into cows eggs to create hybrid embryos. Got all the way to parliament here in the UK, and the Catholic objectors lost the vote. There are millions of cow eggs from meat cows and scraping some skin cells has no cost. Its not like these things are going to be implanted, they just want to make some stem cells to test the theories, not to make a product.

[thegnat]

When I researched stem cell research, I found quite an interesting fact that seems to take the ethics out of it. They use embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization (That would have been eventually thrown out and they're frozen now). I say if embryonic stem cell research is unethical, then so is in-vitro fertilization. And if in-vitro fertilization is ethical, then so is embryonic stem cell research.

Also, now they can make stem cells out of adult skin cells - and the pluripotent (being able to change into anything) kind -which was why embryos were so great. The other cells weren't able to be developed that way yet. I hope that soon restrictions will be lifted.

[Aronnax]

The opponents are afraid if a useful application is found for embryonic stem cells that they'll have to be sourced from humans en mass. They relate that to large scale abortions, even though there are a variety of ways to source stem cells that don't involve abortions.

In other words "I don't understand it, it frightens me and someone told me it's unethical so I'm against it."

[notoppings]

The three post prior to this just go to show that this group of people (mostly) are some of the most enlightened individuals and informed on the latest science and research. They are not afraid and are not swayed by the less informed, thank you this truly impresses me.

I feared that there would be more debate against stem research because of the number of religious topics. Maybe it is yet to come. Saying that, if you are opposed to this research please help me to understand your position and what has brought you to it.

[hauteur]

The fear that I have (as a Christian) does have to do with abortion. Yes there are ways to do this that don't require an aborted fetus, but the fear is that they won't be used. As someone said, since it is not illegal, there is nothing to stop fetuses from being used.

There is also the fear of "growing babies" for this purpose.

Myself and a lot of the Christians I know don't have a problem so long as it is tightly controlled to only use "naturally occuring" stem cells - umbilical cord, placenta, etc. Others see it as a slippery slope where morals are abandoned in favor of perceived benefit - kind of like Aronnax said.

Some of the more fundamentalist people I know see it as playing God. They see any health applications involving DNA to be bad business.

[azelismia]

The fear that I have (as a Christian) does have to do with abortion. Yes there are ways to do this that don't require an aborted fetus, but the fear is that they won't be used. As someone said, since it is not illegal, there is nothing to stop fetuses from being used.

There is also the fear of "growing babies" for this purpose.

Myself and a lot of the Christians I know don't have a problem so long as it is tightly controlled to only use "naturally occuring" stem cells - umbilical cord, placenta, etc. Others see it as a slippery slope where morals are abandoned in favor of perceived benefit - kind of like Aronnax said.

Some of the more fundamentalist people I know see it as playing God. They see any health applications involving DNA to be bad business.



think of the benefits though. they will be able to regrow hearts and livers and arms and legs. it will revolutionize health care. this is the problem with religion. it would hold us back to the caveman days for no good reason other than fear and control.

[Mozzes]

think of the benefits though. they will be able to regrow hearts and livers and arms and legs. it will revolutionize health care. this is the problem with religion. it would hold us back to the caveman days for no good reason other than fear and control.

Ethical concerns related to abortion aren't even relevant. Or at least they won't be soon. The scientific community has already succeeded in creating embryonic or embryonic-like stem cells from somatic cells which don't require a human egg or an embryo to produce.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[azelismia]

Ethical concerns related to abortion aren't even relevant. Or at least they won't be soon. The scientific community has already succeeded in creating embryonic or embryonic-like stem cells from somatic cells which don't require a human egg or an embryo to produce.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I don't understand why it's so unethical to use abortions anyway. They are going to happen. at least they don't go to waste if they're used for this technology.

[Aronnax]

I don't understand why it's so unethical to use abortions anyway. They are going to happen. at least they don't go to waste if they're used for this technology.

It's better to figure out a way to grow them out of somatic cells instead of fetal stem cells because it's easier to harvest somatic cells. If this technology meets it's potential there won't be nearly enough fetal cells from abortions to meet the needs of people who want skin grafts, replacement organs and bone marrow transplants.

[hauteur]

think of the benefits though. they will be able to regrow hearts and livers and arms and legs. it will revolutionize health care. this is the problem with religion. it would hold us back to the caveman days for no good reason other than fear and control.

So, using other means besides an aborted fetus holds us back to the caveman days?

Only stem cells from an aborted fetus would revolutionize health care?

[azelismia]

So, using other means besides an aborted fetus holds us back to the caveman days?

Only stem cells from an aborted fetus would revolutionize health care?



uh, where did I say that. I was not trying to say that they were the only way to go. What's holding us back to the caveman days is the stance of organized religion on this sort of thing. I agree, growing the cells ourselves is much more feasible. Basically, I was just trying to say that the fears over using aborted fetus's was overreacting, in my ever so humble opinion. they're going to waste as it is and they could save lives of others,so what's the big deal.

[Aronnax]

So, using other means besides an aborted fetus holds us back to the caveman days?


I was thinking of the whole "We'll torture you if you don't recant your heliocentric explanation of the solar system." thing when I read that sentence.

[azelismia]

I was thinking of the whole "We'll torture you if you don't recant your heliocentric explanation of the solar system." thing when I read that sentence.


'zactly

[hauteur]

'zactly

So, believing that it is immoral to use aborted children is trying to keep science from advancing in your view then? Sure,not killing children, Catholic control over Europe suppressing growth. Same thing. Riiiight

azelismia I thought you just said you didn't think that but then you agreed. Which is it?

I'm sorry but I just think that's kind a twisted world view. You want to suppress science by not letting us harvest dead babies. Their being killed anyway, why not use them? Whatever.

And as far as what the big deal is, most of Christians don't want abortion to be legal. The last thing we want to do is make abortion even more profitable (Planned Parenthood had a record setting year last year with $700 million in revenue - although, technicall revenue from clinics decreased).

[thegnat]

So, believing that it is immoral to use aborted children is trying to keep science from advancing in your view then? Sure,not killing children, Catholic control over Europe suppressing growth. Same thing. Riiiight

azelismia I thought you just said you didn't think that but then you agreed. Which is it?

I'm sorry but I just think that's kind a twisted world view. You want to suppress science by not letting us harvest dead babies. Their being killed anyway, why not use them? Whatever.

And as far as what the big deal is, most of Christians don't want abortion to be legal. The last thing we want to do is make abortion even more profitable (Planned Parenthood had a record setting year last year with $700 million in revenue - although, technicall revenue from clinics decreased).

Personally, I think that since there are so many other ways to harvest stem cells and more are more are viable options, that aborted fetuses shouldn't even come to the mind when talking about stem cell research. As Arronax said, "It's better to figure out a way to grow them out of somatic cells instead of fetal stem cells because it's easier to harvest somatic cells."

Scientists like doing things as easily as possible. Using stem cells from fetuses isn't that option. So I think there should be no real and viable fear that they'll use aborted fetuses just because they can.

Check out those articles Frickles posted, too.

[azelismia]

So, believing that it is immoral to use aborted children is trying to keep science from advancing in your view then? Sure,not killing children, Catholic control over Europe suppressing growth. Same thing. Riiiight

azelismia I thought you just said you didn't think that but then you agreed. Which is it?

I'm sorry but I just think that's kind a twisted world view. You want to suppress science by not letting us harvest dead babies. Their being killed anyway, why not use them? Whatever.

And as far as what the big deal is, most of Christians don't want abortion to be legal. The last thing we want to do is make abortion even more profitable (Planned Parenthood had a record setting year last year with $700 million in revenue - although, technicall revenue from clinics decreased).


I agreed that what was holding science back was religions persecution of science. no one ever said anything about killing children being ok. terminating a non-viable fetus is another thing. Having fear of a science that will save many many life's is backwards, especially when there are cheap and easy ways of attaining the needed material.

[hauteur]

thegnat

Like I said, I don't have a problem with it as long as there are legislative restrictions so that aborted fetuses cannot be used and babies cannot be grown or cloned in order to be harvested. In other words, as long as the approach to get the stem cells isn't immoral, I don't have an issue.

[thod]

As ever the logic is all over. I attempted to parse it into English

So, believing that it is immoral to use aborted children is trying to keep science from advancing in your view then?
Do you believe it is immoral to use a dead fetus to advance science?

Sure,not killing children, Catholic control over Europe suppressing growth. Same thing. Riiiight
Not sure at all about what this means.

azelismia I thought you just said you didn't think that but then you agreed. Which is it?
azelismia, You have made two contradictory statements, please state which one is your true position.

I'm sorry but I just think that's kind a twisted world view. You want to suppress science by not letting us harvest dead babies. Their being killed anyway, why not use them? Whatever.
I believe that the existence of something does not imply usage rights over that thing.

And as far as what the big deal is, most of Christians don't want abortion to be legal.
I believe that having a use for the product of abortion will encourage abortion, to which I am opposed.

The last thing we want to do is make abortion even more profitable (Planned Parenthood had a record setting year last year with $700 million in revenue - although, technicall revenue from clinics decreased).
I believe that finding a use for something will lead to the development of a commercial market for that thing.

[hauteur]

I agreed that what was holding science back was religions persecution of science. no one ever said anything about killing children being ok. terminating a non-viable fetus is another thing. Having fear of a science that will save many many life's is backwards, especially when there are cheap and easy ways of attaining the needed material.

I don't get why you seem to think that I wan t to hold back science. I don't know that I implied being afraid of stem cell research. Some have. I haven't. I just want to make sure there are controls in place.

As far as no one saying anything about killing children being OK, Arronax said my statment about not wanting to use aborted fetuses made him thing of Catholic suppression in the middle ages. You agreed. What might I take from that?

[Aronnax]

I don't get why you seem to think that I wan t to hold back science. I don't know that I implied being afraid of stem cell research. Some have. I haven't. I just want to make sure there are controls in place.

As far as no one saying anything about killing children being OK, Arronax said my statment about not wanting to use aborted fetuses made him thing of Catholic suppression in the middle ages. You agreed. What might I take from that?

Many of the people who are opposed to stem cell research believe that stem cell research is bad, regardless of how it's done. You may not oppose research performed with umbilical cord blood or modified somatic cells but that doesn't mean large portions of pro-life lobbiests agree with you. Some do, and their literature is kicking around but many oppose stem cell research in all forms.

[Mozzes]

Nothing makes me want to vomit more when people who don't know anything about science try to talk about science.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[BallentineChen]

Well, who knows, this may be a blessing in disguise. This may be one of the examples where adverse conditions have stimulated innovation to surpass our international peers.

[ThaiGreenTea]

Yes ethics should come into it.

Heck, ethics come into play for EVERYTHING.

We shouldn't use embryonic stem cells. Not even if we're going to throw them away otherwise. Why? Because if we use their cells for research, then it is WE who killed them with our own hands. On the other hand, if we throw them out, then at least we didn't dismember a human being.

Human beings are formed the instant sperm and an egg are combined, not in 3 weeks where glob of cells "magically" turn into a human being.

Abortion is wrong. Embryonic stem cell research is wrong.

If you think you're so self important that other human beings should die to regenerate your (liver / heart / neurons), then you would not be able to understand this anyway.

[thod]

We shouldn't use embryonic stem cells. Not even if we're going to throw them away otherwise. Why? Because if we use their cells for research, then it is WE who killed them with our own hands. On the other hand, if we throw them out, then at least we didn't dismember a human being.


What? The cells will die anyhow if you leave them in a dead fetus. If you have a supply of such things you may as well extract, its already dead. Whats wrong with cutting up a dead body for medical research, it happens all the time. No women thinks, "I will get pregnant then abort so they can pursue stem cell research".

Human beings are formed the instant sperm and an egg are combined, not in 3 weeks where glob of cells "magically" turn into a human being.


So what about hollowed out cow eggs with a skin cell pushed in. There is no sperm and egg contact.

Abortion is wrong. Embryonic stem cell research is wrong.

Nah, abortion was a great advancement for humanity. Take this to the abortion thread, not here.

If you think you're so self important that other human beings should die to regenerate your (liver / heart / neurons), then you would not be able to understand this anyway.

Nobody is dieing. Nobody has any treatments. This is pure scientific research on how these things work. Knowledge is a good thing.

[hauteur]

I agree with ThaiGreenTea completely.

But, I do have to give these guys credit for one point. Christians do (as a collective body) tend to be resistant to science. Today it is stem cells, before that it was organ transplants. Many extremely fundamentalist Christian even think psychology is wrong.

But the important point for you to remember is that not all Christians think this way. The far right wing and the far left wing have one very important thing in common - they are a both minorities that make a whole lot of noise. This makes it appear to the opposing side that it is much more of a representative view than it really is.

[Aronnax]

We shouldn't use embryonic stem cells. Not even if we're going to throw them away otherwise. Why? Because if we use their cells for research, then it is WE who killed them with our own hands. On the other hand, if we throw them out, then at least we didn't dismember a human being.

Human beings are formed the instant sperm and an egg are combined, not in 3 weeks where glob of cells "magically" turn into a human being.

Abortion is wrong. Embryonic stem cell research is wrong.

If you think you're so self important that other human beings should die to regenerate your (liver / heart / neurons), then you would not be able to understand this anyway.


This is a perfect example of my earlier point.

"I don't like abortions so anything I associate with them is bad."

Note I said "I associate" rather than "associated". IVF leftovers have nothing to do with abortion but I'll set that aside for a moment to examine your logic Thai.

The zygotes used in most labs are extras left over from fertility procedures. They'd be discarded normally, destroying that collection of cells. How is destroying a group of cells through experimentation morally reprehensible while destroying them by throwing them in the trash acceptable?

Do you oppose medical experimentation on cadavers under similar grounds?

[phantasma]

I don't get why there's such a debate over stem cell research. There's more than one way to get stem cells. Just don't use embryonic stem cells. Easy enough.

[Aronnax]

I don't get why there's such a debate over stem cell research. There's more than one way to get stem cells. Just don't use embryonic stem cells. Easy enough.

Embryonic stem cells are the only stem cell we definitely know can grow from a stem cell into any cellular structure. Determining the how and why of that process lies at the core of the research process. Using or avoiding the use of embryonic stem cells part isn't an issue of convenience, it's an essential part of answering the question "How do cells organize into larger structures?"

[Beery Swine]

I'm fine with E-SC research and all types of cloning. It's only a matter of time before the first human is cloned. I'll start a thread on it.

[ThaiGreenTea]

This is a perfect example of my earlier point.

"I don't like abortions so anything I associate with them is bad."

Note I said "I associate" rather than "associated". IVF leftovers have nothing to do with abortion but I'll set that aside for a moment to examine your logic Thai.

The zygotes used in most labs are extras left over from fertility procedures. They'd be discarded normally, destroying that collection of cells. How is destroying a group of cells through experimentation morally reprehensible while destroying them by throwing them in the trash acceptable?

Do you oppose medical experimentation on cadavers under similar grounds?

See if you can follow me here:

Premise: Killing a human being is wrong.


A combined egg and sperm form a zygote
A zygote forms a human baby
A human baby forms a human

Thus: A combined egg and sperm form a human.

I don't think I'm stretching the facts too far for that one, but it will become important later on.

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

So now we can apply the ideas: Killing a human being is wrong and a combined egg and sperm form a human to this situation of throwing zygotes out.

We can either:
A) Throw the zygote into the trash
or
B) Use the zygote for embryonic stem cell research.

We can either kill a human being or kill a human being and reap the benefits of scientific knowledge. Logically, choice two seems like the clear winner. But lets play the game, "Choose the lesser of two evils," shall we?

A) Let a zygote [human being] rot in the trash bin.
or
B) Dismember the zygote [human being] and kill it for embryonic stem cell research.

Both kill a human being, but at least if we throw it in the trash, "we" are not killing it. If we dismember it, then "we" are killing it. It's a bad decision either way, but you have to ask, which is more morally reprehensible? B.

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

I just added abortion to the mix, Arronax, because I disagree with that as well. As I put it, "You f*'d one person, don't f*k another." I feel as if no individual should determine whether another person lives or dies arbitrarily. I apply this same idea to the death penalty. I've thought my feelings toward abortion and stem cell research out; it isn't just a natural reflex for me to pounce on the word "abortion" with fang and claw. I initially thought the same way as you, but that was until I realized we faced the "lesser of two evils" scenario with throwing away the zygotes.


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

Finally, the cadaver issue (looong post). We don't kill people to harvest their bodies. They die and then we use them for scientific research. Huge difference.

[Aronnax]

Killing a human being is wrong and a combined egg and sperm form a human to this situation of throwing zygotes out.

We can either:
A) Throw the zygote into the trash
or
B) Use the zygote for embryonic stem cell research.

We can either kill a human being or kill a human being and reap the benefits of scientific knowledge. Logically, choice two seems like the clear winner. But lets play the game, "Choose the lesser of two evils," shall we?

A) Let a zygote [human being] rot in the trash bin.
or
B) Dismember the zygote [human being] and kill it for embryonic stem cell research.

Both kill a human being, but at least if we throw it in the trash, "we" are not killing it. If we dismember it, then "we" are killing it. It's a bad decision either way, but you have to ask, which is more morally reprehensible? B.



If you're assuming the zygote is human any action taken other than eventually implanting it in a womb would be murder.

Your condition "A" wouldn't be "let the human rot in the trash" it would be closer to "Allow a human to die from exposure and starvation". If we were to put a quadriplegic in my rubbish bin until he starved to death and began to rot would we be guilty of murder? After all, "we" just put him in the garbage, "we" didn't kill him.

This stance leaves you with an interesting moral decision:

Option A: You allow someone to die a slow death from exposure so you could make the semantic arguement "well, at least we didn't cut them up."

Option B: You give someone a quick death and out of that quick death comes insight that will eventually give us the ability to save many lives.

[azelismia]

See if you can follow me here:

Premise: Killing a human being is wrong.


A combined egg and sperm form a zygote
A zygote forms a human baby
A human baby forms a human

Thus: A combined egg and sperm form a human.

I don't think I'm stretching the facts too far for that one, but it will become important later on.

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

So now we can apply the ideas: Killing a human being is wrong and a combined egg and sperm form a human to this situation of throwing zygotes out.

We can either:
A) Throw the zygote into the trash
or
B) Use the zygote for embryonic stem cell research.

We can either kill a human being or kill a human being and reap the benefits of scientific knowledge. Logically, choice two seems like the clear winner. But lets play the game, "Choose the lesser of two evils," shall we?

A) Let a zygote [human being] rot in the trash bin.
or
B) Dismember the zygote [human being] and kill it for embryonic stem cell research.

Both kill a human being, but at least if we throw it in the trash, "we" are not killing it. If we dismember it, then "we" are killing it. It's a bad decision either way, but you have to ask, which is more morally reprehensible? B.

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

I just added abortion to the mix, Arronax, because I disagree with that as well. As I put it, "You f*'d one person, don't f*k another." I feel as if no individual should determine whether another person lives or dies arbitrarily. I apply this same idea to the death penalty. I've thought my feelings toward abortion and stem cell research out; it isn't just a natural reflex for me to pounce on the word "abortion" with fang and claw. I initially thought the same way as you, but that was until I realized we faced the "lesser of two evils" scenario with throwing away the zygotes.


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

Finally, the cadaver issue (looong post). We don't kill people to harvest their bodies. They die and then we use them for scientific research. Huge difference.




an egg and a sperm are not yet human. they are the potential to be a human. Humans are fully formed, can think, feel pain, and survive without a host. a egg and a sperm cannot do those things. if given time they'll probably turn into one, or they might not be a viable match and abort spontaneously.

and throwing something in the trash to die without first dispatching of it is just as bad as killing it any way if not worse.
Neglect is just a passive form of violence.

[sriv]

Both kill a human being, but at least if we throw it in the trash, "we" are not killing it. If we dismember it, then "we" are killing it. It's a bad decision either way, but you have to ask, which is more morally reprehensible? B.


I suppose if I go out and remove all four limbs of a male human being, place him in the Amazon, I wouldn't be killing him?

[ThaiGreenTea]

This stance leaves you with an interesting moral decision:

Option A: You allow someone to die a slow death from exposure so you could make the semantic arguement "well, at least we didn't cut them up."

Option B: You give someone a quick death and out of that quick death comes insight that will eventually give us the ability to save many lives.

Yeah. That's what it comes down to. There is no way to win.

Option B made me point out that I disagree with euthanasia as well. (Back to the "No one should arbitrarily terminate the life / not even give them a chance at life" notion.)


EDIT:
I think I should point out we're already going in circles here. You guys have very slim chances of convincing me that its better to kill a zygotes ourselves in the name of science rather than let it rot in the trash, and conversely I highly doubt I'm going to sway any of you.

Basically, it comes down to whether you value morals or logic more. That's really all it is.

[azelismia]

Yeah. That's what it comes down to.

so why do you think this? Why is it worse to give a quick death for the benefit of many than to let something slowly suffer. (not that this is the case with a zygote as it doesn't have the capacity for feeling, but going back to the case of a fully formed and and viable human who can breath and think on their own)

[ThaiGreenTea]

so why do you think this? Why is it worse to give a quick death for the benefit of many than to let something slowly suffer. (not that this is the case with a zygote as it doesn't have the capacity for feeling, but going back to the case of a fully formed and and viable human who can breath and think on their own)
Well right, the zygote cannot feel yet so it won't notice if we use its cells for science or let it rot. We will. The point is that the zygote could become a full-fledged human being if given the chance [which it won't, but still ethics here], and we should not kill the zygote / future human being.

It's principal.

[azelismia]

Yeah. That's what it comes down to. There is no way to win.

Option B made me point out that I disagree with euthanasia as well. (Back to the "No one should arbitrarily terminate the life / not even give them a chance at life" notion.)


this was added on to since I responded, but again, why is it better to let something suffer than to be given relief? Have you actually known anyone, for instance, with cancer? un-treatable cancer? If not I suggest you go out on the web and read some of the instances of what people go thru knowing there is no light at the end of the tunnel for their suffering (ditto for other animals as well, I had to give hospice care to a pet cat with oral cancer, she had to be put down at the end. it's grim.. very very grim.) And then come back with an argument that justifies suffering with no relief. that's just barbaric.

Furthermore, with the no one should arbitrarily terminate the life/not even give them a chance at life notion you quote, why is life so important that we bring every possible seed to life? If it's terminated before it can breath on it's own or experience suffering then how is it a bad thing? It's better to bring them into a world where no one will care for them and possibly abuse them than it is simply not to continue it's development? Society isn't capable of supporting every single human possible. By your own argument doesn't that make the very idea of sperm banks and artificial insemination unethical as many of those potential humans will never see the light of day. How about guys jacking off and wasting all those sperm, and women going on the pill. Heathens all of them?

you're catholic aren't you? Admit it.





azelismia added to this post, 2 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Well right, the zygote cannot feel yet so it won't notice if we use its cells for science or let it rot. We will. The point is that the zygote could become a full-fledged human being if given the chance [which it won't, but still ethics here], and we should not kill the zygote / future human being.

It's principal.

why, what good does that principle do at the end of the day? there are lots of possibilities in life, and could doesn't hold up as far as reality goes. I "could" also sprout wings and fly. Think of all the needless suffering that could be alleviated with this science. you're going to deny a small child whose lost his sight and limbs in a house fire the chance to regrow those features because of a possible human that never came to term?

[Aronnax]

Well right, the zygote cannot feel yet so it won't notice if we use its cells for science or let it rot. We will. The point is that the zygote could become a full-fledged human being if given the chance [which it won't, but still ethics here], and we should not kill the zygote / future human being.

It's principal.

But it was destroyed by human hands either way so where's the principle? Would you consider an adult innocent if they left their infant in a hot car? If there's concious action leading to a death it how to you justify it as "not murder"?

I'm really interested in how this is rationalized...

Edit~Actually it would make the most sense if the church was against fertility treatment as well, that way this little dilemma wouldn't come up. Does anyone have an idea why many pro-life organizations are OK with fertility treatment?

[ThaiGreenTea]

this was added on to since I responded, but again, why is it better to let something suffer than to be given relief? Have you actually known anyone, for instance, with cancer? un-treatable cancer? If not I suggest you go out on the web and read some of the instances of what people go thru knowing there is no light at the end of the tunnel for their suffering (ditto for other animals as well, I had to give hospice care to a pet cat with oral cancer, she had to be put down at the end. it's grim.. very very grim.) And then come back with an argument that justifies suffering with no relief. that's just barbaric.

Yes, I know about cancer. I’ve personally known people who have had cancer and animals like you have. First-hand experience for this, my dog who was euthanized on Christmas Eve had brain cancer. On that day the cancer finally completely debilitated him, he could no longer walk at all. For the previous days, he could no longer drink, we had to use a syringe to put water in his mouth. I saw him suffer every day for years when I took him for walks knowing how the cancer would eventually get the best of him and there was not a damn thing we could do about it, how sometimes his paws would drag how he would stumble, how he every few months he would yelp in pain and become rigid but there was nothing we could do for him. So yes, I know how stem cells could help us and yes I know people suffer.

I never justified suffering without relief. If you could point where I suggested that, it would be appreciated. The only way I can think you thought I said this was by saying we shouldn’t use embryonic stem cells. That is not justifying suffering at all.

Furthermore, with the no one should arbitrarily terminate the life/not even give them a chance at life notion you quote, why is life so important that we bring every possible seed to life? If it's terminated before it can breath on it's own or experience suffering then how is it a bad thing? It's better to bring them into a world where no one will care for them and possibly abuse them than it is simply not to continue it's development? Society isn't capable of supporting every single human possible. By your own argument doesn't that make the very idea of sperm banks and artificial insemination unethical as many of those potential humans will never see the light of day. How about guys jacking off and wasting all those sperm, and women going on the pill. Heathens all of them?

Okay, I’m going to play devil’s advocate for this one. Why isn’t life important? Would you really suggest that we should end one person’s chances to ever experience life just so I can get a better kidney because I was a heavy drinker, or repair my neurons because I have been paralyzed from the neck down due to an accident, or reconstruct my bone marrow because I have an inherited genetic disorder which has debilitated me for life? Realize that most people do not have life-threatening or life-debilitating diseases, and most of the ills of human society are self inflicted. C.f. cirrhosis [new liver], obesity[new pancreas], diabetes[new pancreas], heart disease [new heart].

At least that person who gets to experience a hell of a life gets to experience life at all. If you think about it, life with its ups and downs is worth living. If anyone would try and take my life away from me, even at the worst, most depressing part of my life, I would still tell them, “No.”

The mere chance that the zygotes could have bad lives isn’t sufficient to kill them. Abuse? Yeah it’s going to happen for some of them. But guess what, abuse will happen whether those zygotes are born or not. These zygotes being born are not going to change the “abuse quota” in the world. I bet every single person on these forums, and I’m going to go on a huge limb here, but the world, has faced extreme hardship at one time or another, but still, I doubt that they would had said, "I wish I never lived," 24/7.

It’s a bad thing to kill the zygote because of what it is. Human Sperm + Human Egg = Human. Maybe you don’t recognize it as a human today, or a human tomorrow, but were it given the chance it, it could stare you in the eyes and drink a pina colada with you. Just because it cannot breathe yet or feel yet does not change the fact it is a human.

Finally, for the jack and jill argument. Sperm, if given the proper conditions and care, will never form naturally into a human being. Eggs, if given the proper conditions and care, will never form naturally into a human being. If combined, then they will form a human being (with the proper care). So no, sperm banks and artificial insemination are not unethical and they do not strike the moralist in me.




you're catholic aren't you? Admit it.

Is Catholic synonymous for a close-minded fool?





why, what good does that principle do at the end of the day? there are lots of possibilities in life, and could doesn't hold up as far as reality goes. I "could" also sprout wings and fly. Think of all the needless suffering that could be alleviated with this science. you're going to deny a small child whose lost his sight and limbs in a house fire the chance to regrow those features because of a possible human that never came to term?
Again, I’m going to say: It’s better to live a life, no matter how crappy, than to never even be given the chance to have a good or bad life. Finally, yes, I would deny that child his sight. Heck, I would deny myself the rest of my life if it meant not killing a human being. Again, understand that this is a fickle situation, and in both cases the human is destroyed. In both cases we lead up to the death of the human. However, in one case we actually commit the act, and in the other we leave it up to bacteria. That’s the whole difference.

[Aronnax]

Basically, it comes down to whether you value morals or logic more. That's really all it is.

I missed this little gem.

How can morals violate logic? What I'm getting at is are you calling God illogical or are you saying morality is a construction of man rather than God?

[ThaiGreenTea]

I missed this little gem.

How can morals violate logic? What I'm getting at is are you calling God illogical or are you saying morality is a construction of man rather than God?

How can morals violate logic? They do all the time. Check out stealing for instance, logically a hungry person should steal some food so they can live, but morally they are told not to do so. Morals say that the rich should help the needy. It gives no amazing benefit to them, sure you can say it suppresses rebellion or BS a whole group of answers, yet many do. Altruism does not help the giver.
I can't answer either of second part of your questions. Chiefly because I'm not sure if there is a God. Prove to me he exists. Prove to me he doesn't. Either side has endless rebuttals.

I think many of you want a logical answer to this issue, which is why you can't comprehend my stance. Unfortunately for you, I have explained pretty much as well as I can for you why I believe what I do, and the final decision for me is driven by ethics which is not *drum roll*... logic.There are more forces in the world than logic, and not everything is answerable to it.

[Aronnax]

How can morals violate logic? They do all the time. Check out stealing for instance, logically a hungry person should steal some food so they can live, but morally they are told not to do so. Morals say that the rich should help the needy. It gives no amazing benefit to them, sure you can say it suppresses rebellion or BS a whole group of answers, yet many do. Altruism does not help the giver.
I can't answer either of second part of your questions. Chiefly because I'm not sure if there is a God. Prove to me he exists. Prove to me he doesn't. Either side has endless rebuttals.

I think many of you want a logical answer to this issue, which is why you can't comprehend my stance. Unfortunately for you, I have explained pretty much as well as I can for you why I believe what I do, and the final decision for me is driven by ethics which is not *drum roll*... logic.There are more forces in the world than logic, and not everything is answerable to it.

If there's no God and ethics don't have a logical foundation where do they come from and what are they based on? Wouldn't a set of morals with no coherent structure be arbitrary? If morals are arbitrary then why should anyone obey your definition of morals?

I've never met someone who believed life began at conception but didn't believe in God, this becomes more interesting with every post.

Without the issue of the soul what exactly makes conception a defining event? There's no brain yet, not even a nervous system. For all intents and purposes I could scrape more "human" out of my cheek than exists in a zygote.

I've read your "special care" arguement making the distinction between sperm/eggs and zygote but the womb is a pretty stringent form of "special care". How is the definition of "special care" in the form of controlled environment with a nutrient bath much different than a controlled environment with a nutrient bath and a half set of chromosomes? After all, a zygote absorbs millions of times more amino acids than that paltry amount of RNA to develop into an infant so is that measured amount the only thing that distinguishes human from nonhuman?

[azelismia]

I never justified suffering without relief. If you could point where I suggested that, it would be appreciated. The only way I can think you thought I said this was by saying we shouldn’t use embryonic stem cells. That is not justifying suffering at all.

you said that you didn't support Euthanasia.


Okay, I’m going to play devil’s advocate for this one. Why isn’t life important? Would you really suggest that we should end one person’s chances to ever experience life just so I can get a better kidney because I was a heavy drinker, or repair my neurons because I have been paralyzed from the neck down due to an accident, or reconstruct my bone marrow because I have an inherited genetic disorder which has debilitated me for life? Realize that most people do not have life-threatening or life-debilitating diseases, and most of the ills of human society are self inflicted. C.f. cirrhosis [new liver], obesity[new pancreas], diabetes[new pancreas], heart disease [new heart].

So what if it's self inflicted. it's still needless suffering that we could alleviate by using cells. let's call them by their proper name shall we, they are not human. They are of human origin but it's like calling my Liver a human at this stage of development. You're saving an already existing life, or saving it from suffering if not death.

At least that person who gets to experience a hell of a life gets to experience life at all. If you think about it, life with its ups and downs is worth living. If anyone would try and take my life away from me, even at the worst, most depressing part of my life, I would still tell them, “No.”


How bad has your life been? we're you neglected? hit? Sexually abused? Have you had to go in for blood tranfusions every few days? do you bruise if someone touches you? Have you ever gone hungry?

it's neglectful to bring a life into this world that can't be cared for properly. you seem to miss the point that

POTENTIAL IS NOT THE SAME AS REALITY. just because something has potential does not make it a viable life. It's a seed still. It's no different than any of the sperm and eggs in a bank. if they are there and can be combined to make a fetus then it's just as much of a crime to let them go to waste as it is to put them together and then let them not develop.

is it not?

The mere chance that the zygotes could have bad lives isn’t sufficient to kill them. Abuse? Yeah it’s going to happen for some of them. But guess what, abuse will happen whether those zygotes are born or not. These zygotes being born are not going to change the “abuse quota” in the world. I bet every single person on these forums, and I’m going to go on a huge limb here, but the world, has faced extreme hardship at one time or another, but still, I doubt that they would had said, "I wish I never lived," 24/7.


how can you kill something that cannot support it's own life. at moment of conception there is no heart or lungs or brain formed. it's just a mass of cells. you can cut off nutrition and a proper environment for those cells to go on forming but you can't take a knife to it and kill it or deprive it of oxygen so it can't breath. it's like uprooting a plant.

and how do you know that reducing unwanted children won't reduce the amount of abused children in the world? Unwanted children are just that, unwanted. they are far more likely to suffer abuse, directly or indirectly than actual wanted children.

It’s a bad thing to kill the zygote because of what it is. Human Sperm + Human Egg = Human. Maybe you don’t recognize it as a human today, or a human tomorrow, but were it given the chance it, it could stare you in the eyes and drink a pina colada with you. Just because it cannot breathe yet or feel yet does not change the fact it is a human.

Yes, it does. it has the potential to be human, but it is still just a zygote that does not think feel breath or have form at that stage.
but, approaching this from another angle, So what if it's human at that stage, What makes it so special that it must be brought to term. it's not going to feel anything. It's not going to ever know the difference. it's a vegetable and a parasitic one at that, at this stage. What makes humans more special than other sorts of life on this planet? do you realise what it would mean for the planet if every possible conception took place??

Finally, for the jack and jill argument. Sperm, if given the proper conditions and care, will never form naturally into a human being. Eggs, if given the proper conditions and care, will never form naturally into a human being. If combined, then they will form a human being (with the proper care). So no, sperm banks and artificial insemination are not unethical and they do not strike the moralist in me.

but they have teh potential to be a human life? Isn't it a crime not to make them into a human? if we did we could all drink pina colada's together...








Again, I’m going to say: It’s better to live a life, no matter how crappy, than to never even be given the chance to have a good or bad life. Finally, yes, I would deny that child his sight. Heck, I would deny myself the rest of my life if it meant not killing a human being. Again, understand that this is a fickle situation, and in both cases the human is destroyed. In both cases we lead up to the death of the human. However, in one case we actually commit the act, and in the other we leave it up to bacteria. That’s the whole difference.



Why? Why is it better to not use cells from a non-entity than it is to make the quality of life better for the already living? you're talking about not saving a life of someone already here and viable for something that would rot and never be brought to term anyway?
How is that ethical?

[Sara27]

It is not illegal to conduct stem cell research in the US. It is illegal to add any new lines of stem cells to the existing inventory of governmentally funded labs. The problem is that certain stem cell lines are better at producing certain types of cells than other lines (i.e. - nerve cells). Private labs are free to accept new stem cell lines, but they cannot have any government funding. These private labs are dead in the water without federal funding since the cost of research is so great.

Ethics should be part of science and everything we do. We need to keep ourselves in check and evaluate our actions. Stem cell research is a wonderful and amazing form of research. We are conducting stem cell research in this country every day. It is legal and has been helping human kind. We need to untie the arms of our researchers by allowing more stem cell lines.

Abortions are not needed for stem cell lines. There are companies that cell umbilical cord freezer space for your child so that they may use their own stem cells to cure a disease down the road. Stem cell lines should be donated, of course. We are not talking about setting up a Hefty bag in an abortian clinic to further science. Just as people donate their organs to help others after death, volunteers should be able to provide new stem cell lines to properly funded labs. I would be the first one to donate a stem cell line, just as I have a sticker on my drivers liscence showing that I am an organ donor.

If abortion is wrong, than why is it a natural part of existance? I have known a number of people who have experienced spontanious abortion (a.k.a. miscarriage). It is very sad for those parents who want a child, yet it is a bodies way of regulating itself.

Again, stem cells can be harvested without a medical abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with this issue.

[ThaiGreenTea]

Forgive me for doing this, but I'm going to have to reply tomorrow (too many points to tackle for 12 AM.) But anyway, in order to understand my opinion, I suppose you need to understand me a bit. My mom is pretty religious (Catholic) (listens to Mother Angelica all the time, goes to church everyday if she can, etc), while my dad (Sikh) really doesn't care about religion that much. Before I go on though, I find it pretty laughable that being associated with the word Catholic would be a death sentence, especially on this forum of "open-minded" people. Hence I am somewhat offended that people use whole religions and make sweeping generalizations. But, back to the point, I go to church every weekend, do the motions... don't really feel anything. I once had a strong religious feeling when I was 11 for about a year, but that subsided. I want to believe in God, but can't. Thus, I go on hope that these morals are actually worth something and all the chances I missed out on because of these codes will be worthwhile.

Second point, I disagree with embryonic stem cell research, but for stem cell research in general, go crazy. Knock yourselves out. As Sara27 pointed out, they can use umbilical cells, etc. Sure it's not much, but at least it's something.

[azelismia]

Forgive me for doing this, but I'm going to have to reply tomorrow (too many points to tackle for 12 AM.) But anyway, in order to understand my opinion, I suppose you need to understand me a bit. My mom is pretty religious (Catholic) (listens to Mother Angelica all the time, goes to church everyday if she can, etc), while my dad (Sikh) really doesn't care about religion that much. Before I go on though, I find it pretty laughable that being associated with the word Catholic would be a death sentence, especially on this forum of "open-minded" people.

who ever said it was a death sentence to be catholic? I've known some very intelligent and open minded Jesuit priests who did question the stance of the church and what they believed in. One of the ones I talked to was agnostic even (which I'll never understand, but he was still a jesuit priest, I suppose some of them remain priests so they can teach, even if they seriously question the faith?). but, The views you put forth are those that are pushed by the catholic church, in particular. I was merely identifying a source as there were so many hallmarks of the catholic in your rhetoric. I was right, you come from a catholic home. The catholic church has never been a friend of science.

[Sara27]

ThaiGreenTea: Morals are always worth something. You don't need a god to be moral. What have you missed out on because of your moral codes?

[ScottH]

The simple facts, as they appear to me, is that there is a genuine battle going on over control of the minds of the masses. I think it was one day a battle for control, now I suspect it's more a batter for self-validation.

The religious right--not religious people in general--is fighting hard to force it's beliefs upon the masses. One of the key issues is the issue of life: is abortion ok (NO, they say), can we humans get too deep into messing with "life" (NO, they say), etc.

It's so similar to when the Catholics publicly said "It's ok to talk about the big bang, but you cannot talk about what came before, because that would be presuming to know the mind of God" (quotes not literal).

If we permit the result of an abhorrent (by their standards) act (abortion) to be profitable (to man, or to mankind), it provides momentum to the "pro abortion" argument.

If we permit mankind to delve too deeply into the process of life, it tends to diminish the position of power of God's owners.

Imagine the disappointment over the years as so many "acts of God" have been rationally explained away by science: fire, lightening, eclipses, the behavior of the planets... the "right" is losing power fast, and it's struggling to hold on.

I understand the view, for while I don't share it (the 'right' view), I, for one, am opposed to euthanasia because I believe it is a slippery slope. How will society's perception of a "valuable human" change when it becomes legal, acceptable and normal for one to end their own life when they feel they are not valuable?

But, in the end, I like the impedance between the scientists and their opponents. Science can be dangerous, and it's probably a good thing that there are factions--regardless their motivation--that keep us from normalizing "today's discoveries" too quickly.

Stem cell research, and all it's wonderful results will come to pass, eventually :-)

[hauteur]

This is a perfect example of my earlier point.

"I don't like abortions so anything I associate with them is bad."

Note I said "I associate" rather than "associated". IVF leftovers have nothing to do with abortion but I'll set that aside for a moment to examine your logic Thai.

The zygotes used in most labs are extras left over from fertility procedures. They'd be discarded normally, destroying that collection of cells. How is destroying a group of cells through experimentation morally reprehensible while destroying them by throwing them in the trash acceptable?

Do you oppose medical experimentation on cadavers under similar grounds?


Change abortion to the holocaust. Think of all the physiological and psychological experiments that they couldn't have done any other way. Are you saying that, since they were going to kill the Jews anyway, why not reap the benefits for scientific study?

Let's take that one step further. Why not reap the benefits of their possessions? After all, they were going to die anyway. No reason to let all of that valuable stuff go to waste, right?

The bottom line is that most Christians believe that abortion is murder. Is it really that hard to see why we might be opposed to reaping the benefits of what we view as a murderous act?

I'm not asking you to agree with me that abortion is murder. That wasn't the point of this thread. I'm just asking you to understand why we are opposed to embyonic stem cell research.

[Mozzes]

Change abortion to the holocaust. Think of all the physiological and psychological experiments that they couldn't have done any other way. Are you saying that, since they were going to kill the Jews anyway, why not reap the benefits for scientific study?

Let's take that one step further. Why not reap the benefits of their possessions? After all, they were going to die anyway. No reason to let all of that valuable stuff go to waste, right?

The bottom line is that most Christians believe that abortion is murder. Is it really that hard to see why we might be opposed to reaping the benefits of what we view as a murderous act?

I'm not asking you to agree with me that abortion is murder. That wasn't the point of this thread. I'm just asking you to understand why we are opposed to embyonic stem cell research.

What does that have to do with IVF trash - biological materials that were never going to become a human being anyways? Unfortunately I think this is one of those irreconcilable differences.

[hauteur]

I honestly don't have a firm position on IVF because I have not researched it to see what the physical process is. It's using aborted fetuses that gets my hackles up, so I should have been more specific than just "embryonic stem cell research."

Although, I would be opposed to any idea of a "fetus farm" where babies are grown to a certain point in order to be harvested.

[Sara27]

They pay $3,000 - $5,000 for women to donate eggs. Check out any college newspaper.

With IVF ovum and sperm are harvested and introduced (test tube baby). Not all eggs are fertilized. The ones that are fertilized are placed in the woman. If multiple fetuses grow than an option of selective termination is given to the parents. Selective termination greatly improves the survival of the fetus/es allowed to develop. It is much safer for a women to bring 1 or 2 fetuses to term than 6. Our bodies weren't made for that.

[Antares]

Thai: Yet, would it make a difference if we throw a dead fetus into the trash or extract stem cell from them? If they're dead anyway...

Human beings are formed the instant sperm and an egg are combined, not in 3 weeks where glob of cells "magically" turn into a human being.

Then we go into an area that crosses the 'abortion' argument. Logically, does 46 chromosomes indicate superiority? Why is a zygote with 46 chromosomes superior to a, say, grown dog? The zygote can't feel pain, it can't think. It's just a human cell with the potential to become much more. Yet from your view, you would rather kill the dog than the human zygote? If we can waste an aborted embryo or use it, well, you'd think we'd 'killed' it, in your logic at least. But if the outcome is going to be the same; either way, the embryo is dead, then I'd make a good use of it.

Abortion is wrong. Embryonic stem cell research is wrong.

You have some explaining to do.

If you think you're so self important that other human beings should die to regenerate your (liver / heart / neurons), then you would not be able to understand this anyway.

Oh, you know, think of it that this way. A lump of cells without thoughts, feelings or senses are used to serve the greater good. Fine. That lump of cells each has 46 chromosomes. So what? That's no more human than my skin.

Although, I would be opposed to any idea of a "fetus farm" where babies are grown to a certain point in order to be harvested.

Don't use emotional words. They're not babies. A chicken embryo is not a chick. A shark egg is not a baby shark. Their ability to feel pain is much more primitive than most developed mammals in most stages of their development; well after when they are 'harvested'. If you're not vegetarian, you probably didn't give a damn enjoying your last steak. But you would care about fetuses, with 46 chromosomes, with little or no feelings, dying.

[Starylon]

I guess it (mostly) comes down to whether you consider an embryo a human or not (or your overall idea of what a human is) and whether or not you think a bad life is better than no life at all.

[hauteur]

Don't use emotional words. They're not babies. A chicken embryo is not a chick. A shark egg is not a baby shark. Their ability to feel pain is much more primitive than most developed mammals in most stages of their development; well after when they are 'harvested'. If you're not vegetarian, you probably didn't give a damn enjoying your last steak. But you would care about fetuses, with 46 chromosomes, with little or no feelings, dying.

The last I checked, killing animals for food is not considered murder by anyone but the strictest vegans. Killing humans is almost universally considered as murder.

Now the question is - when does a lump of cells stop being a lump of cells and start being a person? What "thing" happens that causes that transformation?

People who favor partial birth abortion seem to think there is something magical about the birth canal or breathing oxygen (or whatever) that makes a fetus human. If you have never read one, I would challenge you to read an account of the actual medical process. It is downright horrifying.

But, let's say you don't prescribe to that. Where is the line then? Is it when the nervous system forms? How about the brain? What about when the heart starts beating? At what point do you have to say that it is a human versus a lump of cells?

Most people who support abortion would cliam that it is at the point that the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother's womb, so at about five months. Using that method of defining human would also imply that anyone in a coma or on life support is also "not human." Afterall, they are not viable.

The fact is, it does come down to whether or not you consider a fetus to be be human. You can argue that if you like, but the fact is that I've yet to meet a mother who heard her baby's heartbeat for the first time and thought "ah, that's no big deal. It's just a lump of tissue. Come back when I'm five months in. Then I'll get excited because I'll actually have a baby inside me."

I should also point out that one of the primary selling points of the holocaust was to take away the humanity of the Jews - to make them less than human. That made it OK. I have a neighbor who grew up in Germany. Her dad was a good little Fascist. It is horrifying to listen to her talk about how the holocaust was actually a good thing because there were "no retards or cripples draining the system" while she was growing up.

[Brutananadilewski]

The last I checked, killing animals for food is not considered murder by anyone but the strictest vegans. Killing humans is almost universally considered as murder.

So? A majority or minority means nothing in terms of the validity/truth of a concept.

Now the question is - when does a lump of cells stop being a lump of cells and start being a person? What "thing" happens that causes that transformation?

People who favor partial birth abortion seem to think there is something magical about the birth canal or breathing oxygen (or whatever) that makes a fetus human. If you have never read one, I would challenge you to read an account of the actual medical process. It is downright horrifying.

But, let's say you don't prescribe to that. Where is the line then? Is it when the nervous system forms? How about the brain? What about when the heart starts beating? At what point do you have to say that it is a human versus a lump of cells?


That's the question of teh day, to which there is no real, objective answer. In light of that fact, I'd argue that since people won't agree, that they let others do whatever they wish based on their own perspectives and definitions. Live your life the way you want to based on your subjective permises, and let others live their lives based on their subjective premises. Why must we bring our opinions into the lives of others?

Most people who support abortion would cliam that it is at the point that the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother's womb, so at about five months. Using that method of defining human would also imply that anyone in a coma or on life support is also "not human." Afterall, they are not viable.

The situations are not analagous, and therefore the conclusion baseless. A person in a coma has already been defined as a human individual, whereas a fetus hasn't. The coma victim has lived autonomously, the fetus hasn't.

The fact is, it does come down to whether or not you consider a fetus to be be human. You can argue that if you like, but the fact is that I've yet to meet a mother who heard her baby's heartbeat for the first time and thought "ah, that's no big deal. It's just a lump of tissue. Come back when I'm five months in. Then I'll get excited because I'll actually have a baby inside me."

Again, so? How many pregnant women have you met and with whom you've specifically asked these questions?

I should also point out that one of the primary selling points of the holocaust was to take away the humanity of the Jews - to make them less than human. That made it OK. I have a neighbor who grew up in Germany. Her dad was a good little Fascist. It is horrifying to listen to her talk about how the holocaust was actually a good thing because there were "no retards or cripples draining the system" while she was growing up.

That's great about the Holocaust, but again, a fetus and an autonomous human being are not analagous (I never said the fetus wasn't human, but they're not analagous, and therefore no conlusion abotu fetuses can be drawn from exploration of the Holocaust and its precipitating factors/ramifications).

[hauteur]

So? A majority or minority means nothing in terms of the validity/truth of a concept.


No, it doesn't. However, the last I've heard we are designed to be omnivores (unless you ask PETA, that is). That means we're biologically wired to have meat on the menu. Not everyone prescribes to that, sure. But I would argue that's why most of us wouldn't call it murder.

On the other hand, switch it to animal cruelty like dog fighting and you're likely to get a different response. Unless you're talking to Michael Vick, of course. :cheesy:


That's the question of teh day, to which there is no real, objective answer. In light of that fact, I'd argue that since people won't agree, that they let others do whatever they wish based on their own perspectives and definitions. Live your life the way you want to based on your subjective permises, and let others live their lives based on their subjective premises. Why must we bring our opinions into the lives of others?


You know, this statement reminds me of a guy I know at work. Bring up abortion and he rails on about how we shouldn't "legislate morality." The problem is that he forgets about things like murder and theft. I hated to tell him, but those things are legislated morality. It does happen and it needs to happen. But, as you say, whether or not abortion is murder is the question of the day.


The situations are not analagous, and therefore the conclusion baseless. A person in a coma has already been defined as a human individual, whereas a fetus hasn't. The coma victim has lived autonomously, the fetus hasn't.


My point was only that the commonly cited "condition" is viability - not viability when viability hasn't been previously established.


Again, so? How many pregnant women have you met and with whom you've specifically asked these questions?


Certainly not enough to constitute a scientific study, but I've talked to several. I've heard many different accounts of new moms going in to hear their baby's heartbeat for the first time. How about the women here who have children? Feel free to speak up if you think I'm delusional on this point.


That's great about the Holocaust, but again, a fetus and an autonomous human being are not analagous (I never said the fetus wasn't human, but they're not analagous, and therefore no conlusion abotu fetuses can be drawn from exploration of the Holocaust and its precipitating factors/ramifications).

They are analagous in the idea that millions of people were murdered in the holocaust and millions of people have been murdered through abortion. Benefiting from the murder without participating in the murder does not absolve you of guilt.

[Brutananadilewski]

Certainly not enough to constitute a scientific study, but I've talked to several. I've heard many different accounts of new moms going in to hear their baby's heartbeat for the first time. How about the women here who have children? Feel free to speak up if you think I'm delusional on this point.

95 % percent of pregnant women may indeed agree with your assessment, or 99%, but that means nothing to me if its not universal. Unless every single mother of sound mind feels the exact same way, I could care less that they're tickled pink over a baby's heartbeat, because realistically, there are plenty of women for whom that heartbeart can bring all sorts of unpleasant emotions aside from joy (which doesn't say anything about them).



They are analagous in the idea that millions of people were murdered in the holocaust and millions of people have been murdered through abortion. Benefiting from the murder without participating in the murder does not absolve you of guilt.

Again, the fetus has not definitively been established as a person, and since the definition of murder is the killing of a human being, it's not analogous. It has nothing to do with benefit and everything to do with the established definitions of life, person, and human.

You know, this statement reminds me of a guy I know at work. Bring up abortion and he rails on about how we shouldn't "legislate morality." The problem is that he forgets about things like murder and theft. I hated to tell him, but those things are legislated morality. It does happen and it needs to happen. But, as you say, whether or not abortion is murder is the question of the day.

Legislated morality to the point of guaranteeing an individual's rights, freedoms and safety. I fail to see how abortion jeopardizes any of the above as long as a fetus is not universally accepted as being a human person.

[hauteur]

Do keep in mind that I originally said that I wasn't trying to convince you that abortion was murder. I think it's quite obvious that won't happen. I was trying to explain why Christians don't like the idea of using aborted fetuses for stem cell research.

[Brutananadilewski]

Do keep in mind that I originally said that I wasn't trying to convince you that abortion was murder. I think it's quite obvious that won't happen. I was trying to explain why Christians don't like the idea of using aborted fetuses for stem cell research.

I understand, and I'm not trying to convince you of my position either, but rather dissect the perspectives a little more.

[hauteur]

The crux of the abortion debate does come down to the question of "when does a fetus become a human being?" Most Christians say at the moment that egg is fertilized. Personally, I put it at the point that it embeds in the uterine wall. Lots of eggs get fertilized but there is no way they can survive without being attached.

Pro choice people put it at later points depending on just how pro choice they really are.

Because there is no objective scientifc event that declares a fetus is an official person, we are left with what makes the most sense - and end up with a lot of disagreement for our trouble. So, of course there is no consensus.

[Beery Swine]

Now the question is - when does a lump of cells stop being a lump of cells and start being a person? What "thing" happens that causes that transformation?

In a word, consciousness. In more, memories of friends, loves lost, really good pizza, last Sunday's episode of Venture Bros., political ideals, you get the idea. These are merely examples, of course, but a zygote alone is not a "human", it is merely the makings of one.

So what do you think constitutes a human? Is it the potential for something to eventually, one day, to become an adult? Every skin cell that you shed on a daily basis has the potential to become a fully developed human being in its early adulthood, yet I doubt that you save, or even attempt to save every one that flakes off of you when you scratch your arm or brush up against someone in the hall.

[Sara27]

At what age does a baby become conscious? 1st hour after popping out? 1st day? 1st month? How can we tell? Is it possible with their undeveloped mind?

I prefer a person being a person when they are born. Maybe that's laziness on my part, but it seems like a good place to start (being human that is).

[Beery Swine]

At what age does a baby become conscious? 1st hour after popping out? 1st day? 1st month? How can we tell? Is it possible with their undeveloped mind?

I prefer a person being a person when they are born. Maybe that's laziness on my part, but it seems like a good place to start (being human that is).

A baby, and these are my opinions alone, doesn't attain what I would call full consciousness until well into its teens. Its semi conscious as soon as its awake, and the degree to which it is conscious grows daily. A person with no memories is not a person, its just an organism with the human genome. As a side, an alien, or machine for that matter, with full human-like consciousness or even consciousness that surpasses our own should be afforded the same rights as any human, possibly more so depnding on its level of consciousness.

Bottom line: if I am left with the choice to either save a newborn human or a middle-aged taxidermist I'll go every time for the one who actually has something to lose, the one with what I call a "soul".

[Sara27]

Bottom line: if I am left with the choice to either save a newborn human or a middle-aged taxidermist I'll go every time for the one who actually has something to lose, the one with what I call a "soul".

So would I.

Hey, what's wrong with a middle-aged taxidermist? Why is he on the line? :)

[Beery Swine]

So would I.

Hey, what's wrong with a middle-aged taxidermist? Why is he on the line? :)

...because rogue members of PETA took his profession as corpse desecration and stormed his office with hostile intent??? :laugh:

[Antares]

The last I checked, killing animals for food is not considered murder by anyone but the strictest vegans. Killing humans is almost universally considered as murder.

I don't care what the majority thinks. It's a fact that the animal you killed for that steak is much more complex than the embryo. Why should we give preferential treatment to the fetus just because it has 46 chromosomes?

People who favor partial birth abortion seem to think there is something magical about the birth canal or breathing oxygen (or whatever) that makes a fetus human. If you have never read one, I would challenge you to read an account of the actual medical process. It is downright horrifying.

Why partial birth abortion? Stem cell research is nothing like partial birth abortion.

Most people who support abortion would cliam that it is at the point that the fetus becomes viable outside of the mother's womb, so at about five months. Using that method of defining human would also imply that anyone in a coma or on life support is also "not human." Afterall, they are not viable.

Strawman. Pro-choice does not constitute pro-abortion. Get your facts straight.

The fact is, it does come down to whether or not you consider a fetus to be be human. You can argue that if you like, but the fact is that I've yet to meet a mother who heard her baby's heartbeat for the first time and thought "ah, that's no big deal. It's just a lump of tissue. Come back when I'm five months in. Then I'll get excited because I'll actually have a baby inside me."

Oh, please don't use the 'mother' analogy. It borders emotional argument and subjective definition. And since when did I deny the humanity of the fetus? Please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

The crux of the abortion debate does come down to the question of "when does a fetus become a human being?" Most Christians say at the moment that egg is fertilized. Personally, I put it at the point that it embeds in the uterine wall. Lots of eggs get fertilized but there is no way they can survive without being attached.

No it doesn't. I explained why in the Abortion thread. It's simply the conflicting interests and rights between the mother and the fetus, and which one should take precedence.

[Sara27]

...because rogue members of PETA took his profession as corpse desecration and stormed his office with hostile intent??? :laugh:
HA! :)