NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think it is moral to do this? My friend, who is a Bush supporter, says that they shouldn't be able to do this because of the fact it's killed a would-be human being. He said they don't know if there are even medical benefits to it and I said like anything, there needs to be more research done on it, like with the effects of pesticides on human health and thats why I'm glad to see California step up and take the first steps. I'm hoping one day that they'll be able to cure these diseases and allow those who are paralyzed to walk, use their arms, etc again and I think this could be the answer. But enough about me, what do you think?

Do you think it is moral to do this? My friend, who is a Bush supporter says that they shouldn't be able to do this because of the fact it's killed a would-be human being.

That statement alone tells me your friend doesn't know anything about the issue....

Conservatives question the morality of stem cell research, when in my opinion, it would be immoral to not follow through with it. If there is a way to save the lives of people like Chrisopher Reeve (sp?) then by all means it should be persued.

a) If you think that it is wrong to study stem cells, then do you think it is wrong to take a life to save a life (or many lifes)

b) If you think that a stem cell is just a bunch of cells, then go for it.

My opinion: If you think a stem cell is a human being, put it out of its petri dish and see if it grows.

Conservatives question the morality of stem cell research, when in my opinion, it would be immoral to not follow through with it. If there is a way to save the lives of people like Chrisopher Reeve (sp?) then by all means it should be persued.



Thats exactly my reason for supporting it.

Funny that the same people that are against abortion are also against stem cell research and for the death penalty :rolleyes:

Not many people remember to include the existence of adult stem cells, which have shown great promise in the research of curing such diseases, while embryonic stem cells have shown no such signs.

The only reason the Conservatives are trying to make stem cell research illegal is because it would kill the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries' profits. You don't sell drugs or sell insurance to people who can get a diseased/unhealthy organ/tissue replaced easily.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that throwing an early-stage embryo in the TRASH is a better respect for 'life' than using them for research? Because if we don't use them for research that is where they go...THE TRASH.

It's a good thing the Bush has the religious right on his side since only a massive group of self-righteous idiots would believe a load of bull like that.

If there is a way to save the lives of people like Chrisopher Reeve (sp?) then by all means it should be persued.
He is dead. Just making sure you knew. Died recently in fact.

Now, I'm a christian, and unfortunately I don't know precisely what the reasoning is against it. I am against cloning, but that's not the same thing. Therefore i can't really make a statement for or against stem cell research, because I just haven't learned enough about it and the arguments for/against.

He is dead. Just making sure you knew. Died recently in fact.

Now, I'm a christian, and unfortunately I don't know precisely what the reasoning is against it. I am against cloning, but that's not the same thing. Therefore i can't really make a statement for or against stem cell research, because I just haven't learned enough about it and the arguments for/against.


Yeah. I know he's dead. But there are many many people like him that aren't.

And I'm also against cloning. Too weird.

Yeah. I know he's dead. But there are many many people like him that aren't.

And I'm also against cloning. Too weird.




At the moment, I would say I'm against cloning as well. Very odd group of people we are.

Human cloning is widely thought impossible, cloning isnt a perfect process, like duplicating a tape flaws slip in, this occured when the Roslyn Institute cloned sheep so there view is that it would only be worse in far more complex humans.
Stem cell research is a real chance to cure disease and change peoples lives. And put it this way whoever develops it successfully will make a fortune, plenty of countries are investing heavily in it, its up to Bush if he wants a part of that for the US...

Yes I do. And therapeutic cloning as well.

At the moment, I would say I'm against cloning as well. Very odd group of people we are.

We're like twins. Two of a kind. Don't you just feel loved? :D

If you think any living human cell is a human being, then anyone who brushes his hair is a serial killer. *nod*

i dont really know what to think..my main concern is in the harvesting or acquiring methods used...and what kind of demand will be created for stem cells...larger demand means more harvesting...i know some stem cells can be taken from umbilical cords and fetal matter...most of the people that support it are against big businesses becuase they dont trust them..can you really trust large companies with such a delicate matter?...still i am undecided

I am against any and all selfish killing of life (abortion, cloning, stemcell research, dealth penalty, ...) Protect the sanctity of all life!!!

I am against any and all selfish killing of life (abortion, cloning, stemcell research, dealth penalty, ...) Protect the sanctity of all life!!!

Vegetarian?

Vegetarian?

How did you guess? Vegan.
Also am a part of Amnesty International.

I am against any and all selfish killing of life (abortion, cloning, stemcell research, dealth penalty, ...) Protect the sanctity of all life!!!

Did you ever slap a mosquito? YOu have plenty of blood. Certainly it's selfish to kill a mosquito who is just trying to feed it's young. You destroyer of life, you!

Did you ever slap a mosquito? YOu have plenty of blood. Certainly it's selfish to kill a mosquito who is just trying to feed it's young. You destroyer of life, you!

I don't kill bugs (but Im not a Jain). They are sentient beings just like you and me, they have a right to live and to feed their young.

I don't kill bugs (but Im not a Jain). They are sentient beings just like you and me, they have a right to live and to feed their young.
Oh, not to diss this philosophy of yours, which is great, but you kill living organisims everytime you breathe. You contribute to envrionmental and humanitary destruction with every step you take. Dying is a fact of living.

I don't kill bugs (but Im not a Jain). They are sentient beings just like you and me, they have a right to live and to feed their young.

Even if they cause harm and death to others through diseases such as malaria?

The idea that we should go ahead and destroy embryos, which many people believe is morally wrong, just in case it MIGHT lead us to a cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, whatever, is ridiculous on its face. The government actually experimented to see the effects of nuclear radiation on human beings on several black people. Was that justified? And especially since there are other avenues of research in this vein that are just as promising, if not more so. Adult stem cells and stem cells from umbilical cords should provide more than enough opportunities for research, without having to artificially create and destroy embryos for some "pie in the sky" possibility. It is positively Frankensteinian.

You need to be more specific in the poll. Are you asking support for all stem cell research, or just the more controversial embryonic stem cell research.

Oh, not to diss this philosophy of yours, which is great, but you kill living organisims everytime you breathe. You contribute to envrionmental and humanitary destruction with every step you take. Dying is a fact of living.

Yes I am killing organisms when I breath! But are these organism sentient? NO ofcourse not!

Yes I am killing organisms when I breath! But are these organism sentient? NO ofcourse not!
And mosquitos are?!

Even if they cause harm and death to others through diseases such as malaria?

Actually the reason why malaria has gone from a sickness to a plague is because of all of the frogs we kill and import from third world countries just so US high schools and have a disection lab.

And mosquitos are?!
Yeah, why wouldn't they be. They are conscious of their life.

Yeah, why wouldn't they be. They are conscious of their life.
How do you know they are "conscious" of their life? How do you know the bacteria you breathe aren't? Sentience implies some degree of intelligence. I think most would agree that mosquitos are not on that level.

How do you know they are "conscious" of their life? How do you know the bacteria you breathe aren't? Sentience implies some degree of intelligence. I think most would agree that mosquitos are not on that level.
I don't think Mosquitoes have Theory of Mind. In fact, they definitely don't. That doesn't necessarily not make them cognitive - very young children don't either - but it certainly makes them unintelligent.

Actually the reason why malaria has gone from a sickness to a plague is because of all of the frogs we kill and import from third world countries just so US high schools and have a disection lab.

Malaria would still be spread by mosquitos regardless of this.

ACtually, a "sentient" being is one with two or more senses, according to the traditional definition. As far as can be determined, a mosquito has one (sight) that is actually used. Therefore it is not a "sentient" being.

People are worried that if we allow Steam Cell Research that the world goign to turn into some Science Fistion novel where we harevst embryos...there are too many people that would protect such a thing that it would never happen.

I'm all for Stem Cell Research, if it weilds results we saves the lifes of millions, if nothing comes up we lost a few bundles of cells which are not a sentient being.

If you think any living human cell is a human being, then anyone who brushes his hair is a serial killer. *nod*
Any single human cell will not ever grow to be another complete human being. An embryo is just that: a human being at the earliest stage of life. Why is it ok to kill a one-celled human being, and not ok to kill a one-year old baby, and some say, not ok to put to death a serial killer or bloodthirsty terrorist?

I had brought up this topic with a group of people a few weeks back, and they all agreed that abortion, stem cell research, etc was wrong (I live in the Bibile Belt- bleh) because it's killing a human life yet they all support the war in Iraq and thats ending a LOT more human lifes than Stem Cell Research no?

Why is an embryo considered fital tissue in a sience lab but considered an unborn child in a court of law?

People are worried that if we allow Steam Cell Research that the world goign to turn into some Science Fistion novel where we harevst embryos...there are too many people that would protect such a thing that it would never happen.

I'm all for Stem Cell Research, if it weilds results we saves the lifes of millions, if nothing comes up we lost a few bundles of cells which are not a sentient being.
Each one of these "bundle of cells" has the potential to grow up to be a future teacher, President, doctor, lawyer, preacher, computer programmer, etc. Is it moral to kill one group of human beings on the theory that it might help another group? Why has no one answered me about the government experiments on blacks to determine the effects of nuclear radiation? That was done to protect the American people. Was that moral? Are they any more or less worthy than the "bundles of cells", which, by the way, you once were also?

I had brought up this topic with a group of people a few weeks back, and they all agreed that abortion, stem cell research, etc was wrong (I live in the Bibile Belt- bleh) because it's killing a human life yet they all support the war in Iraq and thats ending a LOT more human lifes than Stem Cell Research no?

All of them are bad! Anything that causes suffering to another (potential) sentient being is wrong!

Why is an embryo considered fital tissue in a sience lab but considered an unborn child in a court of law?
Actually, SCOTUS has never ruled that an embryo is an unborn child. That's how it gets away with saying that abortion is about a woman' right to choose. If an embryo were legally desigated "person" status, even SCOTUS wouldn't be able to get around giving it all the rights those of us who are lucky enough to already be born enjoy.

People are worried that if we allow Steam Cell Research that the world goign to turn into some Science Fistion novel where we harevst embryos...there are too many people that would protect such a thing that it would never happen.


That's what people said before WWII and during, while the Holocaust was going on.

Each one of these "bundle of cells" has the potential to grow up to be a future teacher, President, doctor, lawyer, preacher, computer programmer, etc. Is it moral to kill one group of human beings on the theory that it might help another group? Why has no one answered me about the government experiments on blacks to determine the effects of nuclear radiation? That was done to protect the American people. Was that moral? Are they any more or less worthy than the "bundles of cells", which, by the way, you once were also?

I understand your point of view but I don't view this as harming a human life, now I could sit here and agrue all day and we could both bring up good points, but everyone here is set in there desion and would break either way. I've learn that lesson a long time ago.

That's what people said before WWII and during, while the Holocaust was going on.

The Holocaust was done in Germany during a time of war where they could hide it from the general public, not in the US where it would be plastered on every News channel in the world.

All of them are bad! Anything that causes suffering to another (potential) sentient being is wrong!

I agree with you that harming a sentient being is wrong, but risk muct be taken for progress to be made, if no one ever scrafuiced a life many of the great things that happened in this world would have never happened.

I had brought up this topic with a group of people a few weeks back, and they all agreed that abortion, stem cell research, etc was wrong (I live in the Bibile Belt- bleh) because it's killing a human life yet they all support the war in Iraq and thats ending a LOT more human lifes than Stem Cell Research no?
Amen. I hate self-righteous people who think they can define life, enforce those definitions on others, and then completely ignore their own hypocrisy.

If killing human embryos is wrong, if killing fetuses is wrong, then how is the death penalty just? The killing, like you said, in Iraq? You cannot have such a subjective version of "justice" ('it's just if I say so!') and expect everyone to convert to your way of thinking.

I agree with you that harming a sentient being is wrong, but risk muct be taken for progress to be made, if no one ever scrafuiced a life many of the great things that happened in this world would have never happened.

But it should be someones own responsibility to sacrafice their OWN life, not the life of an unborn child.

Never forget the eternal rights of the unborn!!

Amen. I hate self-righteous people who think they can define life, enforce those definitions on others, and then completely ignore their own hypocrisy.

If killing human embryos is wrong, if killing fetuses is wrong, then how is the death penalty just? The killing, like you said, in Iraq? You cannot have such a subjective version of "justice" ('it's just if I say so!') and expect everyone to convert to your way of thinking.

What about people like me, who think that abortion, death penalty, stem cell research, and war in Iraq are all wrong?

The Holocaust was done in Germany during a time of war where they could hide it from the general public, not in the US where it would be plastered on every News channel in the world.
Wrong. The abuses started before the war started. And there was plenty of evidence given to Europe and the US of what was going on during the war, just nobody would believe it.

Amen. I hate self-righteous people who think they can define life, enforce those definitions on others, and then completely ignore their own hypocrisy.

If killing human embryos is wrong, if killing fetuses is wrong, then how is the death penalty just? The killing, like you said, in Iraq? You cannot have such a subjective version of "justice" ('it's just if I say so!') and expect everyone to convert to your way of thinking.
Is there an "objective" version of justice? Why would your version be more "objective" than mine? And, whether you agree with it or not, the death penalty is applied for punishment of a crime. Has an embryo committed a crime? And war is prosecuted for the protection of a nation's citizens. Has an embryo recently attacked the USA?

What about people like me, who think that abortion, death penalty, stem cell research, and war in Iraq are all wrong?
I like your ideals. I wish they were practical enough for more people to agree with and keep to...

I like your ideals. I wish they were practical enough for more people to agree with and keep to...

How are they impractical. Im also a vegan. All life is sacred!! From Green Peace to PeTA to Amnesty International!

Is there an "objective" version of justice? Why would your version be more "objective" than mine? And, whether you agree with it or not, the death penalty is applied for punishment of a crime. Has an embryo committed a crime? And war is prosecuted for the protection of a nation's citizens. Has an embryo recently attacked the USA?
Semantics. You're saying it's more important to protect people's lives by killing other people, instead of using tools we could have to to better people's lives. I disagree that the former is more important, or that the latter necessarily involves I can't judge on whether there's an objective version of justice - heaven knows I don't think there's one, but who can say? - but I know that if killing is wrong, it is wrong. You can start drawing lines when you (your party, whatever) hold power, but that's no way to convince anyone of your morality.

Oh and by the way - hundreds of civilians have died in this war, and millions in wars throughout history. Is that, too, justifiable in the interests of protecting a few people from a potential terrorist attack that really might not be coming at all?

How are they impractical. Im also a vegan. All life is sacred!! From Green Peace to PeTA to Amnesty International!
Because there are, and always have been, people who will justify taking certain kinds of life in the name of some-cause-or-other. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, but that I have no faith that a large portion of humanity will ever share them.

Semantics. You're saying it's more important to protect people's lives by killing other people, instead of using tools we could have to to better people's lives. I disagree that the former is more important, or that the latter necessarily involves I can't judge on whether there's an objective version of justice - heaven knows I don't think there's one, but who can say? - but I know that if killing is wrong, it is wrong. You can start drawing lines when you (your party, whatever) hold power, but that's no way to convince anyone of your morality.

Oh and by the way - hundreds of civilians have died in this war, and millions in wars throughout history. Is that, too, justifiable in the interests of protecting a few people from a potential terrorist attack that really might not be coming at all?
Have you seen the video the terrorists sent, showing how they beheaded the American they captured? They sawed off his head at the neck, very slowly, with a small knife. As blood was gushing from his neck, you could hear him screaming until it was almost completely severed. Do you think that these people can be "negotiated" with? Maybe if we're nice to them, they won't hurt us anymore. And I repeat, what did an embryo ever do to you? If you argue it is wrong to kill in war, or by the death penalty, then how can you possibly argue it is ok to kill an embryo, which is completely innocent of anything other than not being outside the womb?

Semantics. You're saying it's more important to protect people's lives by killing other people, instead of using tools we could have to to better people's lives. I disagree that the former is more important, or that the latter necessarily involves I can't judge on whether there's an objective version of justice - heaven knows I don't think there's one, but who can say? - but I know that if killing is wrong, it is wrong. You can start drawing lines when you (your party, whatever) hold power, but that's no way to convince anyone of your morality.

Oh and by the way - hundreds of civilians have died in this war, and millions in wars throughout history. Is that, too, justifiable in the interests of protecting a few people from a potential terrorist attack that really might not be coming at all?
And, by your argument, the USA should never have gone into WWII, in which case the one good thing is we wouldn't have to deal with France right now. The whole European continent would be speaking German, and we wouldn't have to worry about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, because all the Jews would be dead.

So because someone behaves reprehensibly towards us, we do the exact same thing to them? I dunno if you followed the prison scandels, but it was quite as nasty, the things our troops were told to do to Iraqis.

I'm sorry, but I'm a firm believer in 'two wrongs don't make a right'. I don't agree with attacking a country because we thought a brutal regime needed to be taken out... I mean, exactly how many brural regimes should be attacked? How far should we go in spreading 'enlightenment' around the world?

The people we've attacked are far from perfect, but that doesn't give us a mandate to 'kill the infidels', so to speak.

Just a couple sites I felt might help provide some background on the issue for anyone interested with a couple quotes. Tried for sites that present both sides of the issue.

"A stem cell is a primitive type of cell that can be coaxed into developing into most of the 220 types of cells found in the human body (e.g. blood cells, heart cells, brain cells, etc)."

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

"There are three types of stem cells: totipotent, pluripotent, and multipotent. A single totipotent stem cell can grow into an entire organism. Pluripotent stem cells cannot grow into a whole organism, but they can become any other type of cell in the body. Multipotent (also called unipotent) stem cells can only become particular types of cells: e.g. blood cells, or bone cells. Stem cells are also categorized according to their source, as either adult or embryonic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_research

So because someone behaves reprehensibly towards us, we do the exact same thing to them? I dunno if you followed the prison scandels, but it was quite as nasty, the things our troops were told to do to Iraqis.

I'm sorry, but I'm a firm believer in 'two wrongs don't make a right'. I don't agree with attacking a country because we thought a brutal regime needed to be taken out... I mean, exactly how many brural regimes should be attacked? How far should we go in spreading 'enlightenment' around the world?

The people we've attacked are far from perfect, but that doesn't give us a mandate to 'kill the infidels', so to speak.
So I ask you again, what should we do. Make nice-nice with them and hope they will leave us alone? Ignore them and hope they will go away? Oh, I know, we could take them alive (and probably lose many more unnecessary lives than if we just took them out), and bring them before the courts, then have some slimy lawyer and/or liberal judge let them out on a technicality. We don't have a mandate to "kill the infidels". I believe that is the term they use. But when they kill our citizens in such a barbaric manner, we have the right, no, the responsibility, to track them down and bring them to justice.

So because someone behaves reprehensibly towards us, we do the exact same thing to them? I dunno if you followed the prison scandels, but it was quite as nasty, the things our troops were told to do to Iraqis.

I'm sorry, but I'm a firm believer in 'two wrongs don't make a right'. I don't agree with attacking a country because we thought a brutal regime needed to be taken out... I mean, exactly how many brural regimes should be attacked? How far should we go in spreading 'enlightenment' around the world?

The people we've attacked are far from perfect, but that doesn't give us a mandate to 'kill the infidels', so to speak.
And you still have answered my WWII arguement.

But when they kill our citizens in such a barbaric manner, we have the right, no, the responsibility, to track them down and bring them to justice.

And in the pursuit of bringing justice to these terrorists (specifically the ones responsible for the beheadings you mentioned), it is acceptable that tens, hundreds, maybe thousands of "innocents" might also be killed. Much like you say "What has an embryo ever done to you" these are civilians that haven't done anything to you.

Please don't take my statement as trying to offend you as that is not my intent. I understand it could be interpreted that way.

So I ask you again, what should we do. Make nice-nice with them and hope they will leave us alone? Ignore them and hope they will go away? Oh, I know, we could take them alive (and probably lose many more unnecessary lives than if we just took them out), and bring them before the courts, then have some slimy lawyer and/or liberal judge let them out on a technicality. We don't have a mandate to "kill the infidels". I believe that is the term they use. But when they kill our citizens in such a barbaric manner, we have the right, no, the responsibility, to track them down and bring them to justice.
Except nobody in Iraq was killing U.S. citizens, nor was anybody planning to, before we invaded.

Edit - Oh yeah - and in going into Iraq, we actually took our focus off the people who WERE attacking and killing us.

Except nobody in Iraq was killing U.S. citizens, nor was anybody planning to, before we invaded.
Damn those pesky Iraqi's for defending their country...

But yes, on stem cell research... We have all these embryos going to waste, why not use them? They could help save thousands of lives.

And in the pursuit of bringing justice to these terrorists (specifically the ones responsible for the beheadings you mentioned), it is acceptable that tens, hundreds, maybe thousands of "innocents" might also be killed. Much like you say "What has an embryo ever done to you" these are civilians that haven't done anything to you.

Please don't take my statement as trying to offend you as that is not my intent. I understand it could be interpreted that way.
The USA has taken more pains than any other nation in the HISTORY of warfare to avoid civilian deaths. FAR more civilian deaths can be attributed to the terrorists themselves. One of the only countries in a mock vote for the POTUS to choose Bush was Iraq. This is because the terrorists are killing their own people. Saddam killed MILLIONS of civilians. Once again, I bring up WWII. If we worried about killing civilians in WWII, if all the civilian deaths were reported then the way they are now, the continent of Europe would be speaking German right now.

Not many people remember to include the existence of adult stem cells, which have shown great promise in the research of curing such diseases, while embryonic stem cells have shown no such signs.
Precisely.
Also, people tend to forget that there is only so much R&D money to go around. Why is money being blown on ethically grey research, when stuff which is pearly white languishes? Now, if it turns out that adult stem cells can't solve some of these problems, then sure, reopen the debate: but not until then!

Also, people tend to forget that there is only so much R&D money to go around. Why is money being blown on ethically grey research, when stuff which is pearly white languishes? Now, if it turns out that adult stem cells can't solve some of these problems, then sure, reopen the debate: but not until then!
I think that's because embryonic stem cells show more potential than adult ones in terms of development. They're more... multipotent IIRC, and thus could have wider application.

We're like twins. Two of a kind. Don't you just feel loved? :D



I don't even know what to make of that....

The USA has taken more pains than any other nation in the HISTORY of warfare to avoid civilian deaths. FAR more civilian deaths can be attributed to the terrorists themselves. One of the only countries in a mock vote for the POTUS to choose Bush was Iraq. This is because the terrorists are killing their own people. Saddam killed MILLIONS of civilians. Once again, I bring up WWII. If we worried about killing civilians in WWII, if all the civilian deaths were reported then the way they are now, the continent of Europe would be speaking German right now.
Not to say Hitler wasn't evil, but you say "speaking German" as if that's the worst possible fate one could suffer. German is an awesome language.

Terrorist killing of civilians in no way lessens our culpability for such killings as we have made. And again, Saddam's atrocities don't make us world police. So we should invade all the counties that oppress their citizens? Sudan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Burma? We honestly don't have the capability or the rights to be in Iraq.

I am against any and all selfish killing of life (abortion, cloning, stemcell research, dealth penalty, ...) Protect the sanctity of all life!!!




Ok, you must go insane living in the 21st century because death is everywhere.

The USA has taken more pains than any other nation in the HISTORY of warfare to avoid civilian deaths. FAR more civilian deaths can be attributed to the terrorists themselves.

The US, in the hunt for terrorists, is also killing civilians. While the US does its best to minimalize this, it still happens. So innocent civilians end up dying for the "greater good" of preventing even more from being killed by the terrorists.

The US, in the quest to aid/treat/prevent a multitude of diseases, wishes to use embryonic stem cells for research (a process some regard as killing innocents). Now if this is truly what you (and others) believe, isn't this comparable to the "greater good" scenario above?

Such research could prevent even more people from being killed or suffering.

FAR more civilian deaths can be attributed to the terrorists themselves.
I'm pretty sure that's NOT true. Approximately 15 000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Iraq body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/) And besides how do you define "terrorism?" Are people defending their country from people they perceive to be unjust invaders terrorists? If it suits your position they are, right?

[QOTE]FAR more civilian deaths can be attributed to the terrorists themselves.
I'm pretty sure that's NOT true. Approximately 15 000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Iraq body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/) And besides how do you define "terrorism?" Are people defending their country from people they perceive to be unjust invaders terrorists? If it suits your position they are, right?[/QUOTE]



People stay on topic. If you want to talk about Iraq, start a new thread about that.

Funny that the same people that are against abortion are also against stem cell research and for the death penalty :rolleyes:

equally funny that the same people who are for abortion and stem-cell research are against the death penalty...

i'm actually a bleeding heart liberal,so don't shoot me. i just wanted to play conservative's advocate. :p they need all the help they can get, those poor republicans...

People stay on topic. If you want to talk about Iraq, start a new thread about that.

We are staying on topic (trying to anyway).

The comparison is between innocent Iraqi civilians and embryonic stem cells (seen as innocent human lives by those who oppose using them for research purposes). It is unavoidable that "innocent" civilians in Iraq will be killed for the "greater good" of making the world safer from terrorists. Much like embryonic stem cells (innocent lives to some) will serve the "greater good". Hope that makes sense.

We are staying on topic (trying to anyway).

The comparison is between innocent Iraqi civilians and embryonic stem cells (seen as innocent human lives by those who oppose using them for research purposes). It is unavoidable that "innocent" civilians in Iraq will be killed for the "greater good" of making the world safer from terrorists. Much like embryonic stem cells (innocent lives to some) will serve the "greater good". Hope that makes sense.



Killing innocent Iraqis isn't for the betterment of mankind.

Killing innocent Iraqis isn't for the betterment of mankind.

But in the quest to make the world safer (according to Bush and his supporters), that is what is happening.

Not many people remember to include the existence of adult stem cells, which have shown great promise in the research of curing such diseases, while embryonic stem cells have shown no such signs.

embryonic stem cells are the ones that are easier to study. As they are yet unformed, embryonic stem cells are easier to manipulate. We must first understand how to manipulate them before we can manipulate the adult ones,( adult ones are closer to the ones we wish to replace so we will use them when we are sure of our methods.) an dthey only use cells that will not become babies so that is not a problem.(morally)

The US, in the hunt for terrorists, is also killing civilians. While the US does its best to minimalize this, it still happens. So innocent civilians end up dying for the "greater good" of preventing even more from being killed by the terrorists.

The US, in the quest to aid/treat/prevent a multitude of diseases, wishes to use embryonic stem cells for research (a process some regard as killing innocents). Now if this is truly what you (and others) believe, isn't this comparable to the "greater good" scenario above?

Such research could prevent even more people from being killed or suffering.

haven't like 10,000 Iraqis died? compared to 3000 americans? i am not trivializing their deaths, but come on is one American more valuable than 3.3 Iraqis? (also if you throw in soldiers dead it isn't a pretty picture)

how can you have an other on this? it is a yes no or not sure question.

But in the quest to make the world safer (according to Bush and his supporters), that is what is happening.
Funny, then, how the world has been made more dangerous, how the terrorists have proliferated, and how hatred for the US has been made even more wide spread.

Howdy,

First, let me put my Biology major hat on. When you get past all the hype and celebrity endorsements, stem cell research is not very promising unless you take stem cells from the person that needs them to replace missing/defective organs and body parts. The immunity system is designed to keep foreign materials out of your body, and that includes those stem cells you would be injecting into the patient. Macrophages look for certain signal gycloproteins from a cell; if it's not there, the macrophage will perform endocytosis on it. These signals are unique to the individual. Even if one can induce differentiation, the patient would have to be on immunosuppressants for the rest of his life. There would be little, if any, improvement in the quality of life for the patient unless these stem cells came from the individual or were fused with stem cells from that individual. The surgery required to get those stem cells from that individual would probably kill them.

Taking off my major hat, I think using infanticide victims for stem cell research is appalling. Granted, some interesting things could be learned, but at what cost? Our society would be no better than that of Nazi Germany, where they would use Jews and other victims of the Holocaust to do live anatomy studies (aka dissections).

I also do not think that those infanticide victims should be thrown away like yesterday's garbage. I think that the mother should have to take the child home and give it a proper funeral; if she chooses not the give the child funeral rights, she should have to keep the baby in plain sight. I know that we now treat abortion as a constitutional "right", but rights come with responsibilities. I apologize for the rant, but that's what I believe needs to be done if we are going to treat infanticide as something okay to do until you cut the umbilical cord.

I do not wish to impede on progress, but there are better ways to do research in this vein. Organ donors, for example. People have their organs donated to science and/or medical use after they die; the harvesters might as well get at those stem cells while they are there. That immunity problem I mentioned would still be there, but scientists would have the raw materials needed to further their research.

Organ donors, for example. People have their organs donated to science and/or medical use after they die; the harvesters might as well get at those stem cells while they are there. That immunity problem I mentioned would still be there, but scientists would have the raw materials needed to further their research.

I'm certainly not learned enough to contest or authenticate your claim about the problems facing stem cell research, nor am I in any position as of yet to make decisions or claims regarding abortions past a certain point.
I do, however, know that death is a part of life, and that the body is not a sacred thing post mortem, and is just as valuable and useful as a piece of lettuce...as worms and such love to eat it.
Furthermore, blah blah blah overpopulation, not enough burial sites, life is meaningless, aborted fetuses have better uses than to punish women, "every sperm is sacred", etc.

Thus, my point really is to say that not enough people donate their bodies to science, as they are too selfish in life to do what should be done with them in death. To compare abortion to the Holocaust is madness, and I'd rather have my relatives at least used for science than be slaughtered for no benefit or reason whatsoever.

Oh, and Christopher Reeves is not a hero.