[hyteckit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...sci_stem_cells


Yeah Obama. Good news. US has approved 1st stem cell study for spinal injury. Sweet.


Stupid Evangelical Christians who wants to stop human embryonic stem research that could help millions of people can no go hang out with Scientologist. At least Scientologist supports stem cell research that fixes the brain.

Maybe those stupid Evangelical Christians can go back to exorcism and praying as a cure for spinal cord injury, autism, parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and so forth.

Let us who don't share those stupid Evangelical Christians ideas, get the medical treatment we need.

Dawn of a new day. Yeah.

[Shaddim]

Well, you're starting off on the right foot. Glad to see you're not trying to pick a fight.

BTW, you missed this part:

In fact, the company says, the project involves stem cells that were eligible for federal funding under Bush, although no federal money was used to develop the experimental treatment or to pay for the human study.

Other human cells, called adult stem cells, have been tested before in people to treat heart problems, for example.

[Doofy]

Must have missed this part too:

But Obama's ascent to the White House had nothing to do with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's granting permission for the new study, Okarma said in a telephone interview Thursday.

I broke my toe just before Christmas. Damn Bush!
It's getting better now. Praise Obama!

[stupendousman]

The stem cell research controversy is essentially MM GLobal Warming part II. A lot of hue and cry about not much of anything. No one is being stopped from using embryonic stem cells for research or any other types of research using stem cells.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of religious bigotry.

[hyteckit]

Good to know what Obama has already had a positive effect on public opinion on embryonic stem cell research, even on the staunchest conservatives.

The more public and federal support for embryonic stem cell research, the better.

Glad we didn't get crazy McCain who opposes embryonic stem cell research.

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compa..._Cell_Research

[hyteckit]

Obama can tell the Vatican to suck it, and that religion should not interfere with medical advancement.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5132491.ece

[aepple]

People are IDIOTS, and we know this because they usually tell on themselves. Bush Bush Bush, the current state of the economy was cause by the same people who we elected, DEMOCRATS, starting with the housing loans laws (clinton) and everyone involve with banks and the auto industry are all DEMOCRATS, research and you will find them all to be democrats/contributors.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Obama can tell the Vatican to suck it, and that religion should not interfere with medical advancement.

Dr. Mengele would be so proud!

[ironknee]

hicks

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The stem cell research controversy is essentially MM GLobal Warming part II. A lot of hue and cry about not much of anything. No one is being stopped from using embryonic stem cells for research or any other types of research using stem cells.

Exactly. As far as I can tell from this side of the pond, it's just that Bush wouldn't use taxpayers' money to pay for such research.

[shifuimam]

There's also the debate over whether embryonic stem cell research has yet been proven to be markedly beneficial over adult stem cell research.

The legitimate problem Christians and conservatives have with embryonic research is that you are essentially destroying a human life (an unborn baby in the earliest stages of development), which amounts to manslaughter. The argument that "they're abandoned embryos anyhow" is a poor one - the real problem there is not that the lives are being cast off, it's that we're trying to play God and artificially creating them in the first place. It snowballs into one big, sticky, political, ethical situation.

Of course, if you hold onto the belief that life doesn't begin at conception, it's irrelevant, which is why the argument is pretty much pointless from either side.

[Chuckit]

What if you hold onto the belief that these are popsicles that are destined to be destroyed anyway, so at least this way they meant something to the world?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What if you hold onto the belief that these are popsicles that are destined to be destroyed anyway, so at least this way they meant something to the world?

Letting a life die on it's own is vastly different from using it for questionable scientific research purposes.

Using words and phrases like "popsicles" and "destined to be destroyed anyway" is a bit leading and propagandistic. It is also disrespectful of the life that exists.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

There's also the debate over whether embryonic stem cell research has yet been proven to be markedly beneficial over adult stem cell research.

The problem with many adult stem cells is that they are often predisposed to do other tasks, they already have genetic code embedded in them. While it is possible to work with them, it's more difficult to get enough of them. Embryonic stem cells are more common and generally considered better to work with.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The legitimate problem Christians and conservatives have with embryonic research is...

Sorry, go ahead.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

...that you are essentially destroying a human life (an unborn baby in the earliest stages of development), which amounts to manslaughter.

So... women are committing manslaughter on a monthly basis?

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The argument that "they're abandoned embryos anyhow" is a poor one - the real problem there is not that the lives are being cast off, it's that we're trying to play God and artificially creating them in the first place.

No one is artificially creating anything. People play God every day. They rape, murder, drown people, sick animals on children, etc.


I have the inkling feeling, but I'd like to read what you actually know about stem cell research.

[Big Mac]

So much for following the rules of this sub-forum. Was the modifier "stupid" really necessary? I'm offended by it personally and I'm not a Christian.

[subego]

I'd love to see some of you throw these arguments past Nancy Reagan.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one is being stopped from using embryonic stem cells for research or any other types of research using stem cells.

That is misleading.

While technically true, in practice, the major non-profit research labs depend on federal funding to do their work. The stem-cell rule eliminates funding for those labs if they perform prohibited research. So practically speaking, stem cell research of that type had been stopped.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So... women are committing manslaughter on a monthly basis?

On a monthly basis, if a women does nothing, a full and developed human will be created? Wow. News to me. Either that, or you have a clear problem with rational comparisons.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

That is misleading.

While technically true, in practice, the major non-profit research labs depend on federal funding to do their work.

We're talking about a sure-thing solution to all the major health problems we have, to the point where we can just ignore any ethical concerns. If that's the case, then there's surely a FOR PROFIT research lab which will take up the slack when the Government doesn't want to foot the bill for activities that many Americans feel fall under an ethical cloud. Sounds like cash-in-hand to me!

..and if not, surely they have other sources of income they can use and don't have to entirely rely on government hand-outs to do break-through research. Really, is that what our medical field has been reduced to?

The stem-cell rule eliminates funding for those labs if they perform prohibited research. So practically speaking, stem cell research of that type had been stopped.

Apparently, people with cash to invest don't see it as such a sure thing. They'd rather have the taxpayer throw their money down the well. I understand completely.

[turtle777]

As always, where there is hyteckit, there's a lot of FAIL.

-t

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Letting a life die on it's own is vastly different from using it for questionable scientific research purposes.

Using words and phrases like "popsicles" and "destined to be destroyed anyway" is a bit leading and propagandistic. It is also disrespectful of the life that exists.

Exactly. If you believe that human life begins at conception (the fertilization of an ova by a sperm and the resulting embryonic development), destroying an embryo means terminating a life. Creating an embryo in a test tube means creating a life.

A much better alternative would be to stop creating the embryos in the first place. Yes, I know that they can enable otherwise sterile women to birth a child. However, selfishness is not a justification or an excuse for an action.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The problem with many adult stem cells is that they are often predisposed to do other tasks, they already have genetic code embedded in them. While it is possible to work with them, it's more difficult to get enough of them. Embryonic stem cells are more common and generally considered better to work with.

And it would be better if we just nuked the world and started over clean, but that's not enough of a reason to do it, is it?

It's better for the mother to suck out her unborn baby through a tube (or induce labor, crush its skull with forceps, and suck its brain out before removing the rest of the dead baby) so she can ignore the life-changing responsibilities that come with parenthood, but that doesn't really justify the action by any means.

It's not impossible to make medical research developments without embryonic stem cells. It might be easier, but easier is not always right, and in this case, easier is the destruction of life. Artificially created life, yes - but life nonetheless.

So... women are committing manslaughter on a monthly basis?

By murdering her unborn baby? Yes. If you mean menstrual periods, no. An egg is not a life. An egg is part of the material required to begin a new life, but it is not life. A fertilized egg is life, and to terminate a fertilized egg that is rapidly multiplying and will soon become a birthed human being is manslaughter.

No one is artificially creating anything. People play God every day. They rape, murder, drown people, sick animals on children, etc.

Actually, by fertilizing an ova with sperm in a lab, you are artificially creating life.

This just goes back to what I said in my last post - it all depends on when you think life begins. If you like to believe that life begins whenever you say it does, then you can do whatever the hell you want with unborn babies (fetuses, embryos, parasites, whatever you want to call them at whatever point during the gestational cycle).

If, however, you acknowledge and believe that life begins at conception and that there is no magic point during gestation when the child converts from a fetus into a baby and suddenly has worth and value, then ending an unborn life, no matter what point after fertilization, is wholly and unequivocally ending a human life.

But it's moot if you're on the pro-abortion side of the fence.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So much for following the rules of this sub-forum. Was the modifier "stupid" really necessary? I'm offended by it personally and I'm not a Christian.

Ditto. Of course, it's not at all unexpected to see this particular OP attempt to use trolling/inflammatory statements to get his "point" across.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

On a monthly basis, if a women does nothing, a full and developed human will be created? Wow. News to me. Either that, or you have a clear problem with rational comparisons.

She didn't say conception. Even during conception not all fertilized eggs are retained. It'd be considered manslaughter by your rationalization every time a couple has sex.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Apparently, people with cash to invest don't see it as such a sure thing. They'd rather have the taxpayer throw their money down the well. I understand completely.

Apparently you don't, which is why California is trying very hard to keep the studies funded. Paraplegics and even quadriplegics will regain some if not all motor functions thanks to stem cell research in regards to spinal cord and nerve regeneration. That isn't an if or might, that's a when and will. The procedures have already been proven, but they lack proper funding and approval for human testing.

Giving people back their lives is hardly throwing taxpayer money down the well. I've consistently donated money to stem cell research and I think it's the best damn thing I've ever invested in. I would gladly pay an extra couple cents on the dollar to ensure it stays that way.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Exactly. If you believe that human life begins at conception (the fertilization of an ova by a sperm and the resulting embryonic development), destroying an embryo means terminating a life.

We terminate lives all the time for much worse reasons — it's annoying, it's cutting into my livelihood, it tastes yummy — so while it seems pretty certain that these things are alive, so are the people who could be helped by their stem cells. And I don't see why their continued existence (if you can even use that word to apply to a frozen blob of cells) supersedes the needs of thinking, feeling human beings.

[hyteckit]

No, no, no. I had to use the word "stupid", because if I don't, some people on this forum would start accusing me of generalizing and saying all Christians are against embryonic stem cell research, which is not true. So the modified was necessary to avoid confusion and attempts by people on this forum to put words in my mouth.

Besides, when is it against forum rules to use the word 'stupid' when talking about groups and/or political figures? If it was, most of you guys would be banned.

If you believe Scientologists are stupid for not treating psychological problems with drugs, then I believe Christians who are against embryonic stem cell research are stupid as well.

Both Scientologists and Christians are similar this way. They let their belief shape their views on what type of medical treatment they would get. They would let their child suffer when there are possible treatments and cures through embryonic stem cells. Is that idiotic? Yes. Is that stupid? Yes.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

As always, where there is hyteckit, there's a lot of FAIL.

-t

I think you are flame baiting.

[Macrobat]

Christianity had NOTHING to do with it, and embryonic stem cell research was never forbidden or outlawed. Tax dollars were simply forbidden to be used for it.

Considering that there has been YEARS of this reasearch with little to no actual benefits as yet, not sure why you think this was such a great loss.

[TheWOAT]

Tom Cruise would be proud.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think you are flame FAIL baiting.

Correctinated.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Christianity had NOTHING to do with it, and embryonic stem cell research was never forbidden or outlawed. Tax dollars were simply forbidden to be used for it.

Considering that there has been YEARS of this reasearch with little to no actual benefits as yet, not sure why you think this was such a great loss.

Sure, I believe you.

Except for the fact that the Vatican is against it and Pres. Bush tried to ban cloning of human embryos for embryonic stem cell research, but only succeeded to ban federal funding embryonic stem cell research.

With no federal funding and a anti-embryonic stem cell search attitude of the Pres. Bush administration, most companies considers it to be a too big of a risk to invest in it.

Now that stupid Pres. Bush is gone from office and Pres. Obama in now in charge, companies and investors will now start looking into embryonic stem cell research as they are no longer working in the hostile environment created by Pres. Bush and crazy Evangelical Christians who are against it. And the potential of federal funding makes it even more appealing and tempting.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Correctinated.

-t

I think you are flame baiting.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

We terminate lives all the time for much worse reasons — it's annoying, it's cutting into my livelihood, it tastes yummy — so while it seems pretty certain that these things are alive, so are the people who could be helped by their stem cells. And I don't see why their continued existence (if you can even use that word to apply to a frozen blob of cells) supersedes the needs of thinking, feeling human beings.

Ah, so you refer to animal lives.

Are human lives any more valuable or sacred than animal lives, or are we just another animal who happens to be able to do billions of times more with ourselves than other creatures on Earth?

A human life is a human life. If human lives are to be valued (which appears to be the case, since the penalty for taking a human life is far and beyond the penalty for taking an animal life), then destroying a human life - no matter what state of existence it is in - is destroying a human life. And doing so is despicable and pathetic.

I still haven't seen any conclusive evidence that people who may be helped by embryonic stem cells are incapable of being helped by adult stem cells. It might require more time or more effort, but I'm not convinced that destroying undeveloped human life is the only way to further medical technology.

What if a scientist discovered a new theory of destroying cancer, but his clinical trials required terminating cancer patients in the early stages of various cancers? How do you think the general public would respond to that? I mean, the guy who just got diagnosed with Stage I pancreatic cancer is going to die from it anyhow, so we might as well kill him now to benefit others, right?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Sure, I believe you.

Except for the fact that the Vatican is against it and Pres. Bush tried to ban cloning of human embryos for embryonic stem cell research, but only succeeded to ban federal funding embryonic stem cell research.

Sooooo....embryonic stem cell research was never forbidden or outlawed. The government has not ever made it illegal to engage in research projects using embryonic stem cells.

What's your point?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I think you are flame baiting.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Sooooo....embryonic stem cell research was never forbidden or outlawed. The government has not ever made it illegal to engage in research projects using embryonic stem cells.

What's your point?

Point? Stupid Evangelical Christians such as Pres. Bush wants to banned embryonic stem cell research. Failing to do so, Pres. Bush created a hostile environment for anyone attempting to pour money into its research.

With Pres. Bush gone and Pres. Obama in charge, this hostile environment has been lifted and soon, federal money will be pouring into embryonic stem cell research.

Hopefully within less than 10 years, millions of people who suffer from debilitating illness such as autism, parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries will have a medical treatment.

We can't let those stupid Christians who are against embryonic stem cell research stand in the way of medical advancement.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Point? Stupid Evangelical Christians such as Pres. Bush wants to banned embryonic stem cell research. Failing to do so, Pres. Bush created a hostile environment for anyone attempting to pour money into its research.

With Pres. Bush gone and Pres. Obama in charge, this hostile environment has been lifted and soon, federal money will be pouring into embryonic stem cell research.

Hopefully within less than 10 years, millions of people who suffer from debilitating illness such as autism, parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries will have a medical treatment.

We can't let those stupid Christians who are against embryonic stem cell research stand in the way of medical advancement.

Please stop calling Christians stupid. If you want to refer to a particular subset of the larger Christian population, please use an objective, non-derogatory identifier. Your current attitude is inflammatory (also known as flamebait).

What you specifically said indicated that embryonic stem cell research was previously banned or otherwise made illegal. This is untrue. It was previously prevented from applying for federal funding. Whether or not that made such research less attractive to medical companies does not mean that those companies were in any way restricted from it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

A much better alternative would be to stop creating the embryos in the first place. Yes, I know that they can enable otherwise sterile women to birth a child. However, selfishness is not a justification or an excuse for an action.

I never equated having children with being selfish. I always figured it was a selfless act, to pass on knowledge and experience to a future generation.

What's pretty selfish is it to prevent people from enjoying life because they don't agree with your mythology.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

And it would be better if we just nuked the world and started over clean, but that's not enough of a reason to do it, is it?

Um. Non sequitur. Besides, God thought it was a great idea to murder hundreds of millions of people just to start all over.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's better for the mother to suck out her unborn baby through a tube (or induce labor, crush its skull with forceps, and suck its brain out before removing the rest of the dead baby) so she can ignore the life-changing responsibilities that come with parenthood, but that doesn't really justify the action by any means.

What in hell are you talking about? Embryonic stem cell research is not about abortions. Most stem cells are collected from umbilical cords, placentas, and various other parts of the afterbirth that would otherwise be thrown away. Embryonic stem cells were often collected after very healthy babies are born to mothers who love them. A fetus can make a great source of embryonic stem cells because it's still very early in development.

Stem cell research does not cause abortions. It does not kill embryos, fetuses, or babies. It does not encourage people to have abortions or suck brains out with tubes.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It might be easier, but easier is not always right, and in this case, easier is the destruction of life.

You are so completely off base. Maybe you should know what you're talking about before, well, talking about it.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

A fertilized egg is life, and to terminate a fertilized egg that is rapidly multiplying and will soon become a birthed human being is manslaughter.

So when a couple has sex and fertilized, but unretained eggs are passed, it's manslaughter.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

...then you can do whatever the hell you want with unborn babies (fetuses, embryos, parasites, whatever you want to call them at whatever point during the gestational cycle).

Um. Riiight.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If, however, you acknowledge and believe that life begins at conception and that there is no magic point during gestation when the child converts from a fetus into a baby and suddenly has worth and value, then ending an unborn life, no matter what point after fertilization, is wholly and unequivocally ending a human life.

Which has what, exactly, to do with embryonic stem cell research?

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

But it's moot if you're on the pro-abortion side of the fence.

I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. I believe there are always circumstances in which abortion is an acceptable choice. Abortion for the sake of advancing medical science is not one of them.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Ditto. Of course, it's not at all unexpected to see this particular OP attempt to use trolling/inflammatory statements to get his "point" across.

Or you use mythological dogma to get yours across.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What you specifically said indicated that embryonic stem cell research was previously banned or otherwise made illegal. This is untrue. It was previously prevented from applying for federal funding. Whether or not that made such research less attractive to medical companies does not mean that those companies were in any way restricted from it.

Do a search in this thread. When did I specifically said indicated that embryonic stem cell research was previously banned or otherwise made illegal?

[hyteckit]

Wow, Obama is on a roll.

Now he tells the anti-abortion proponents to suck it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...a_abortion_ban

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Ah, so you refer to animal lives.

Are human lives any more valuable or sacred than animal lives, or are we just another animal who happens to be able to do billions of times more with ourselves than other creatures on Earth?

Neither. You present a false dichotomy. I'd suggest that human lives are more valuable than animal lives because of the people they belong to, not because of their genetics. Human DNA is not what's sacred about human life. It's everything else, all those "billions of things" we do that animals don't. If you have one to offer, I would be interested to hear a logical explanation why a frozen embryo is more valuable than a thinking, feeling creature.

Also, I wasn't just talking about animal lives. I was also talking about the humans who could be saved by embryonic stem cells. Their lives are apparently less valuable than an embryo's too, which I find extremely odd.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

A human life is a human life. If human lives are to be valued (which appears to be the case, since the penalty for taking a human life is far and beyond the penalty for taking an animal life)

This is just not true. There are times when there is no penalty at all for taking a human life, and there are times when the penalty can be very high for taking an animal's life.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What if a scientist discovered a new theory of destroying cancer, but his clinical trials required terminating cancer patients in the early stages of various cancers? How do you think the general public would respond to that? I mean, the guy who just got diagnosed with Stage I pancreatic cancer is going to die from it anyhow, so we might as well kill him now to benefit others, right?

Is he an undifferentiated blob of cells with no human relationships? If so, then go right ahead. It's a little surprising that you're OK with killing cancer cells — I mean, they're human.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I never equated having children with being selfish. I always figured it was a selfless act, to pass on knowledge and experience to a future generation.

What's pretty selfish is it to prevent people from enjoying life because they don't agree with your mythology.

So now discussing the point at which a human life becomes a human life is mythology? This has nothing to do with God or my personal dogma. There is zero evidence that an unborn baby is somehow not a baby. There is no answer as to when an unborn baby stops being a disposable fetus and magically becomes a valid human.

What I'm saying is selfish is people who are incapable of having children and are thus willing to create multiple human lives with the hope that one of them will "take". If you want a kid that badly, adopt one the many children born every day in impoverished countries around the world. It'll cost just as much as IVF and won't involve the careless creation of human lives.

Um. Non sequitur. Besides, God thought it was a great idea to murder hundreds of millions of people just to start all over.

My point is that saying "x is better than y" is not an objectively adequate justification for any action, which is the argument ColdWarrior was trying to make.

What in hell are you talking about? Embryonic stem cell research is not about abortions.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "abortion". If "abortion" to you means "the termination of a fertilized egg implanted in the uterus of a viable female", then no. However, if "abortion" to you means "the termination of a fertilized egg", then sorry - it's the exact same thing, except that one is in a petri dish in a freezer and the other is in a woman's body.

Most stem cells are collected from umbilical cords, placentas, and various other parts of the afterbirth that would otherwise be thrown away. Embryonic stem cells were often collected after very healthy babies are born to mothers who love them. A fetus can make a great source of embryonic stem cells because it's still very early in development.

You and I both know that people interested in embryonic stem cell research are not going to turn to healthy unborn babies in gestation in their mothers as the primary source of such cells. It's too easy to use all the human lives we carelessly created in a lab.

Stem cell research does not cause abortions. It does not kill embryos, fetuses, or babies. It does not encourage people to have abortions or suck brains out with tubes.

If we can actually extract stem cells from an unborn child (an embryo) while maintaining the life (and, theoretically, the viability) of that child, then go for it.

But I really doubt that's what's going to happen.

So when a couple has sex and fertilized, but unretained eggs are passed, it's manslaughter.

What do you think? There's a difference between the deliberate creation and destruction of a human life, and the natural end to a human life.

A fertilized egg that does not successfully implant will be passed. A person who dies of cancer passes away. A miscarriage is a child who did not survive full term. None of these are the deliberate, artificial, human-enacted termination of a human life.

Um. Riiight.

No? Then why is abortion considered morally acceptable? How is that different than, say, a woman giving birth and leaving her baby in a dumpster? I mean, the kid won't survive on his own, just like an unborn baby won't survive on his own.

My original text, in context:

This just goes back to what I said in my last post - it all depends on when you think life begins. If you like to believe that life begins whenever you say it does, then you can do whatever the hell you want with unborn babies (fetuses, embryos, parasites, whatever you want to call them at whatever point during the gestational cycle).

If life begins whenever you subjectively decide it does, then I'm not seeing how it's morally reprehensible to do anything to an unborn baby at any time during the gestational cycle.

Which has what, exactly, to do with embryonic stem cell research?

The point I've already made - if life begins at conception, then destroying an embryo in the name of medical progress is terminating a life.

I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. I believe there are always circumstances in which abortion is an acceptable choice. Abortion for the sake of advancing medical science is not one of them.

There is no pro-choice, and there is no pro-life. Either you believe abortion is morally right, or you believe it's morally wrong. I don't give two sh!ts what various "circumstances" you want to come up with for why abortion is right. Either you believe it's right or you don't. If you believe that there are any justifications for the act of abortion, then you believe that abortion is okay.

Or you use mythological dogma to get yours across.

Have you noticed that I have not brought God, dogma, or spiritual belief into this discussion?

The thing is, when life begins is not something that has been unequivocally proven either way by science. Therefore, it is still up for debate. That debate is certainly relevant to the discussion of embryonic stem cell research, since such research will inevitably result in the destruction of embryos.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Neither. You present a false dichotomy. I'd suggest that human lives are more valuable than animal lives because of the people they belong to, not because of their genetics. Human DNA is not what's sacred about human life. It's everything else, all those "billions of things" we do that animals don't. If you have one to offer, I would be interested to hear a logical explanation why a frozen embryo is more valuable than a thinking, feeling creature.

Thinking and feeling do not determine the value of life. A quadriplegic feels nothing, nor does a person in a long-term coma, such as Sunny Von Bulow. A heavily brain-damaged individual is incapable of thinking beyond the capabilities of an infant or, sometimes, an animal. However, these people still have value.

Also, I wasn't just talking about animal lives. I was also talking about the humans who could be saved by embryonic stem cells. Their lives are apparently less valuable than an embryo's too, which I find extremely odd.

It's not less or more. It's equal. A human life is equal to a human life. If undeveloped babies (embryos, fetuses, whatever) are considered human (many people do, as there is no concrete proof to the contrary), they are equal to other humans.

This is just not true. There are times when there is no penalty at all for taking a human life, and there are times when the penalty can be very high for taking an animal's life.

Then perhaps it was a poor example, but I think that it's pretty clear in society that we greatly value human life over animal life.

Is he an undifferentiated blob of cells with no human relationships? If so, then go right ahead.

What do you define as human relationships?

The thing is, you can't base a scientific argument on emotions or characteristics that are purely subjective. The ability to think does not define your value as a human. The capacity for emotion does not, either. Your relationships with other humans does not define your value as a human - were that the case, then loners who eschew all human relationships would have less inherent value than everyone else.

At what point do you view an unborn baby as more than "an undifferentiated blob of cells"? Is it when it starts to develop the nubbins of a head, the dark blobs that become eyes, the buds that become hands? At that point in gestation, those who are pro-abortion have no problem ending the baby's life.

[hyteckit]

shifuimam, I can assume you are against in vitro fertilization.

Success rate of in vitro fertilization of a women > 40 = 14%

86% of the embryos goes to the toilet.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What if you hold onto the belief that these are popsicles that are destined to be destroyed anyway, so at least this way they meant something to the world?

What if you accepted the possibility of baby-milling for scientific research?

[sek929]

Reminds me of the Dream Theater song "The Great Debate" (which is about this exact debate)

"Turn towards the light, don't be frightened of the shadows it creates."

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if you accepted the possibility of baby-milling for scientific research?

What about baby-milling for personal gain like in vitro fertilization?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Neither. You present a false dichotomy. I'd suggest that human lives are more valuable than animal lives because of the people they belong to, not because of their genetics. Human DNA is not what's sacred about human life. It's everything else, all those "billions of things" we do that animals don't. If you have one to offer, I would be interested to hear a logical explanation why a frozen embryo is more valuable than a thinking, feeling creature.

A thinking, feeling creature (I presume you're talking about animals) generally has the ability to protect itself. We humans for religious and even more profound evolutionary causes have developed a system of ethics, an innate set of principles favorable to survival. As a result, we most often feel obligated to protect the vulnerable among us. At the risk of presenting a circular argument, you will find more people concerned about human embryos than say... the spotted owl for example. The mere fact that this issue spawns such rigorous debate among us is logical enough an explanation that burgeoning human life is exponentially more innately valuable to humans than concern for other thinking, feeling creatures. Furthermore, I submit to you that it is almost dissociative to ignore this principle. You might know there are those who believe "do no harm" includes the embryo. Medical ethics enjoy a great deal of academia for this reason among others.

Enough to convince you that frozen human embryos are more valuable than other thinking, feeling creatures? Maybe not, but nothing has been presented to suggest that they are less valuable either. Does it make more sense to abandon a principle than to give it more serious consideration?

Also, I wasn't just talking about animal lives. I was also talking about the humans who could be saved by embryonic stem cells. Their lives are apparently less valuable than an embryo's too, which I find extremely odd.

A short list of those humans saved by embryonic stem cells please? I have a couple of problems with this argument.
1) See, in my opinion you have to establish that they can actually save a life before you deride someone for what you're framing as an illogical stance. Whether their lives can be saved is in question, termination of the human embryo is not.
2) There are other means of collecting embryonic stem cells including new studies suggesting the possibility of extracting 1-2 cells from an existing human embryo without damaging it and growing them into embryonic stem cells. Other studies are attempting to determine whether a frozen embryo is already dead from the process of freezing it and those stem cells could be used. There are several published studies showing the possibility of stimulating adult stem cells to revert them back to an embryonic stem cell-like state and we continue to learn more about how flexible adult stem cells can be in general. With these possibilities available through advancement as opposed to simply saying; "it's a blob"; we might be able to avoid marginalizing ethical differences, learn more about embryonic and adult stem cells, and discourage any possibility of milling one life for another.

This is just not true. There are times when there is no penalty at all for taking a human life, and there are times when the penalty can be very high for taking an animal's life.

In these situations it is generally due to whichever we consider the more vulnerable or "victimized". A human who attempts to rob another human at gunpoint is viewed as victimizing the innocent. If the prey acting in innocence fatally wounds the predator, we're generally going to turn a blind eye. Even in the overwhelming majority of these cases however, they are examined carefully to ensure this was indeed the case.

Is he an undifferentiated blob of cells with no human relationships? If so, then go right ahead. It's a little surprising that you're OK with killing cancer cells — I mean, they're human.

The "undifferentiated blob" argument may be archaic Chuckit. Consider what we knew of the cell 100 years ago and what we know of it today. Does it really make sense to argue with this degree of rigidity?
Journal Nature
Of course, you'll allow for the advancement of science in spite of your opinion on the matter. After all, even the Catholic Church loosened its stance on vaccinating against small pox.

... and for the benefit of our angry left; if they can pony up over $150 mil on a swearing-in ceremony for their beloved savior, they can dig a little for embryonic stem cell research instead of asking people opposed to it for funding at the Federal level.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What about baby-milling for personal gain like in vitro fertilization?

I'd be more interested in Federal funding to encourage those seeking in vitro to adopt any one of the numerous children sitting in orphanages.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd be more interested in Federal funding to encourage those seeking in vitro to adopt any one of the numerous children sitting in orphanages.

Ours (though technically not an "orphanage"), is not federally funded, and i like it that way. It is difficult enough dealing with the numerous bureaucracies just to get child care group home licenses, I can't imagine what one that is not privately funded would have to go through. It took 7 months to get a home licensed from private placement foster care to be licensed as a children's group home. And this was by an organization that has been doing it since the '60's.

But you do make a good point, there are lots of young children who are abandoned. We are caring for a brother and sister who are 4 and 7 who have been in care for over 4 years. Can't even find foster parents for them. Perfectly healthy with zero baggage. We've considered adopting them ourselves, but that would hinder our ability to care for more children. IV fertilization seems a bit selfish and unnecessary at times. I would love to see federal finds used to facilitate adoptions on a great scale. I am appalled that my taxes would be used to experiment with life in such a way that it destroys it.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd be more interested in Federal funding to encourage those seeking in vitro to adopt any one of the numerous children sitting in orphanages.

I would too because existing lives are more valuable and important than embryos or potential life.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I would too because existing lives are more valuable and important than embryos or potential life.

In your opinion (and terminology.)