NationStates Jolt Archive

Although it initially appears to be an incoherant position, I think it can happen. I think that in the whole world of Nationstates, I can find someone to prove me right. Don't let me down now guys.

Is there anyone here who is against abortion, but is in favour of stem cell research?

Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with stem cell research.

And I am both against abortion in nearly all cases and for stem cell research of all kinds.

It is, however, idiotic to be for in-vitro fertilization and against stem cell research.

im for abortion and against embryonic stem cell research

kinda similar

Oooh! Oooh!

I don't have a position on abortion and I'm for stem cell research!

I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion. ;)

I'm pro-choice and anti-abortion. ;)

Hey, me too! And I'm also pro-stem cell research!

Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with stem cell research.

And I am both against abortion in nearly all cases and for stem cell research of all kinds.

It is, however, idiotic to be for in-vitro fertilization and against stem cell research.
Assuming here that we're talking about stem cells harvested from embryos, can you explain breifly how your position works?

im for abortion and against embryonic stem cell research

kinda similar


Ok....I have to ask.....why?

Oooh! Oooh!

I don't have a position on abortion and I'm for stem cell research!
Close, but I need just a little more there.

Unless you can explain how you are able to form an opinion on stem cell research that doesn't also lead to an opinion on abortion.

Ok....I have to ask.....why?

Because it has the words for, against, abortion and stem cell research in it, perchance? :p

Im for abortion and for stem cell research so nothing contradictory there.

Assuming here that we're talking about stem cells harvested from embryos, can you explain breifly how your position works?

There are two ways to get stem cells from embryos:

1 - Use discarded IVF embryos - those that are going to be incinerated anyways. Not using them is simply a waste, especially when the knowledge gained from such research, not to mention the therapies that might come of it, would help countless people.

2 - Therapeutic cloning. This involves an "embryo", but not in the traditional sense. There is no sperm-egg fertilization. The "embryo" has little to no chance of dividing past the blastocyst stage. The cells created would, in effect, be the patient's cells, to do with as they like.

As for abortion, I am pro-choice, in that I think everyone has the choice to make for themselves. However, I am morally opposed to having one.

Close, but I need just a little more there.

Unless you can explain how you are able to form an opinion on stem cell research that doesn't also lead to an opinion on abortion.
Abortion is a baby that will otherwise be born. But, I've got concerns outside of abortion that would bias my opinion, and as such, I refuse to draw a conclusion.

Stem cell research is a baby that may or may not be born, and probably won't be born.

Abortion is a baby that will otherwise be born. But, I've got concerns outside of abortion that would bias my opinion, and as such, I refuse to draw a conclusion.

Stem cell research is a baby that may or may not be born, and probably won't be born.

Actually, stem cell research is never used with any embryo that might be born. In fact, it doesn't even involve a pregnancy ever ocurring.

There are two ways to get stem cells from embryos:

1 - Use discarded IVF embryos - those that are going to be incinerated anyways. Not using them is simply a waste, especially when the knowledge gained from such research, not to mention the therapies that might come of it, would help countless people.
I'm not taking any side here, I'm just asking the questions I think will be asked.

Once an embryo has been created through IVF, doesn't this mean its still valuable as a life, and therefore cannot legitimately be destroyed?

As for abortion, I am pro-choice, in that I think everyone has the choice to make for themselves. However, I am morally opposed to having one.On what grounds do you oppose it?

Abortion is a baby that will otherwise be born. But, I've got concerns outside of abortion that would bias my opinion, and as such, I refuse to draw a conclusion.

Stem cell research is a baby that may or may not be born, and probably won't be born.
But isn't the destruction of the stem cell still killing something that has the possibility to otherwise become human life? I mean, you couldn't say "well, there might be a miscarriage" and justify abortion, right?

We say we are against abortion but we don't do anything to stop it or change any laws. That's our two-faced policy, we use it all te time.

W

Ok....I have to ask.....why?
abortion is a private tragedy that is only compounded by making it illegal. i would rather trust the individual involved to make the best decision for her than to have the government pass blanket laws that have nothing to do with compassion for women in crisis.

im against embryonic stem cell research because i find it vile to create human life for the purpose of killing it. we have long gone down the road to making human life and human relationships cheap. i feel its a step that shouldnt be taken. if there are extra embryos floating around from invitro fertilization procedures they should be given the chance at life by being given to women who cannot otherwise create their own. they arent NOTHING. we dont do experimentation on fully made humans we shouldnt do it on embryos either.

Actually, stem cell research is never used with any embryo that might be born. In fact, it doesn't even involve a pregnancy ever ocurring.
But if you combine a sperm and an egg and division occurs, is that not the creation of human life? Is implantation such an important requirement? Or is it that children created by fertilisation outside of the womb don't count as human life?

But if you combine a sperm and an egg and division occurs, is that not the creation of human life? Is implantation such an important requirement? Or is it that children created by fertilisation outside of the womb don't count as human life?
Not to him.

Once an embryo has been created through IVF, doesn't this mean its still valuable as a life, and therefore cannot legitimately be destroyed?

I don't claim to know when something becomes a human life, although I do not believe it is immediately at conception.

From a scientific viewpoint, no embryo is a living organism, as it does not meet the requirements as such.

On top of that, there is the fact that *in nature* 50-80% of human embryos are discarded. A woman receiving IVF isn't really destroying any more embryos than any woman attempting to get pregnant, she is simply doing it in less time.

On what grounds do you oppose it?

Remember how I said that I don't claim to know when something becomes a human life? Well, I believe (although I do not know) it is somewhere between attachment to the uterine wall and the development of a brain. Some time during that period, I believe that all human beings have a soul - and as such, are human life. I would choose to err on the side of safety, by not considering an abortion unless my life were in danger, or the fetus would not survive.

But if you combine a sperm and an egg and division occurs, is that not the creation of human life? Is implantation such an important requirement? Or is it that children created by fertilisation outside of the womb don't count as human life?

I don't consider a fertilized egg to immediately be a human life, no.

Although I will admit that I lean towards developing therapeutic cloning, because I do find something about the use of such embryos distasteful. In therapeutic cloning, there is no sperm, there is no fertilization, and there will never be a life.

I don't consider a fertilized egg to immediately be a human life, no.
But you oppose abortion no matter how little time has passed since conception?

Although I will admit that I lean towards developing therapeutic cloning, because I do find something about the use of such embryos distasteful. In therapeutic cloning, there is no sperm, there is no fertilization, and there will never be a life.Sorry, my science knowledge on this is not up to scratch and I don't want to make a terminology mistake. Does theraputic cloning involve stem cells?

I don't consider a fertilized egg to immediately be a human life, no.

Although I will admit that I lean towards developing therapeutic cloning, because I do find something about the use of such embryos distasteful. In therapeutic cloning, there is no sperm, there is no fertilization, and there will never be a life.
theraputic cloning "playing god" is fine by me. if my dna goes to make a clone of myself for medical purposes, its a whole nother ball of wax.

an embryo is human but it is not a person, its alive but its not a baby.

On top of that, there is the fact that *in nature* 50-80% of human embryos are discarded. A woman receiving IVF isn't really destroying any more embryos than any woman attempting to get pregnant, she is simply doing it in less time.
But these ones are intentionally destroyed, the ones which are naturally "discarded", isn't that analogous to an accident as compared to murder?

My RE teacher doesn't think it can happen. I think that in the whold of Nationstates, I can find someone to prove me wrong. Don't let me down now guys.

Is there anyone here who is against abortion, but is in favour of stem cell research?
*Waves hand*
I am. Although there are exceptions where I would condone abortion. (rape, incest, danger to the host vessel..errm mother)

theraputic cloning "playing god" is fine by me. if my dna goes to make a clone of myself for medical purposes, its a whole nother ball of wax.
Now why are you making this distinction?

*Waves hand*
I am. Although there are exceptions where I would condone abortion. (rape, incest, danger to the host vessel..errm mother)
Excellent. Again, can you explain briefly how you are able to hold these positions without contradiction?

Now why are you making this distinction?
im making this distinction because i "own" my own dna. if i want to make a new heart with it, thats my choice. i have HAD my chance at life. (which as you recall is my objection to killing embryos)

But you oppose abortion no matter how little time has passed since conception?

If a woman somehow magically found out she was pregnant at/before the blastocyst stage, I probably wouldn't be against it. However, I don't know of any way that could happen.

Sorry, my science knowledge on this is not up to scratch and I don't want to make a terminology mistake. Does theraputic cloning involve stem cells?

Therapeutic cloning would involve taking one of a patient's cells and putting the DNA into an egg cell. You then shock the egg cell so that it begins dividing. When it reaches ~8 days, embryonic stem cells would be removed. These cells could then be used for therapies for the given patient.

If someone wanted to (and some have), they could also donate their DNA for use in creating stem cell lines.

im making this distinction because i "own" my own dna. if i want to make a new heart with it, thats my choice. i have HAD my chance at life. (which as you recall is my objection to killing embryos)
So, the value of human life is on a genetically unique human life?

This is a good one, I hadn't thought of this.

But these ones are intentionally destroyed, the ones which are naturally "discarded", isn't that analogous to an accident as compared to murder?

Not unless the woman who knows that 50-80% of all fertilized eggs are never born and yet still tries to get pregnant is also committing murder, or at least manslaughter.

Excellent. Again, can you explain briefly how you are able to hold these positions without contradiction?
I'm not christian. Who seem to be the majority in these cases. I'm more practical. And stem cell research has so much promise to it that it would be criminal to let it go to waste. Some say there is no proof that it has any benefits. Well duh!!! Thats why we need to research it!!! As for beeing against abortion except in extreme situations. It's purely a demographic thing with me. The effect of living in a western country with low birthrates with all the complications it brings with it.
Mayne not the most logical viewpoint but thats my opinion.

So, the value of human life is on a genetically unique human life?

This is a good one, I hadn't thought of this.
yes
and on owning ones own genetics

this doesnt take the issue of identical twins into consideration but im willing to let that ride until there is a reasonable possibility of it mattering.

Not unless the woman who knows that 50-80% of all fertilized eggs are never born and yet still tries to get pregnant is also committing murder, or at least manslaughter.
If she wasn't trying to get pregnant though, the lives wouldn't exist to be destroyed.

But then, that would provide an arguement for a mother committing infanticide, and we can't do that, so the logic does seem to work.

I'm not christian. Who seem to be the majority in these cases. I'm more practical. And stem cell research has so much promise to it that it would be criminal to let it go to waste. Some say there is no proof that it has any benefits. Well duh!!! Thats why we need to research it!!! As for beeing against abortion except in extreme situations. It's purely a demographic thing with me. The effect of living in a western country with low birthrates with all the complications it brings with it.
Mayne not the most logical viewpoint but thats my opinion.
A strictly utilitarian view here, weighing up not individual cases but the benefits to society. The logic may not be rigorous but its not inherantly incoherant.

yes
and on owning ones own genetics

this doesnt take the issue of identical twins into consideration but im willing to let that ride until there is a reasonable possibility of it mattering.
i'd say that is a rather huge stumbling block, and i don't see how you could just "let it ride." i mean, if you claim ownership of your genetic material then identical twins would "own" each other. additionally, you would not "own" the mitochondria of your own cells, since they have different DNA from yours. even worse, there is genetic variation WITHIN an individual, so which DNA gets to be yours? how similar does the DNA have to be for you to own it, and which cells are you going to use as the basis for the comparison?

too many problems, if you ask me. a clone would not be the property of the donor any more than one identical twin is the property of the other. if you used your genetic material to grow TISSUE then that would be one thing, but as soon as a new consciousness exists it is entitled to recognition as an individual.

i'd say that is a rather huge stumbling block, and i don't see how you could just "let it ride." i mean, if you claim ownership of your genetic material then identical twins would "own" each other. additionally, you would not "own" the mitochondria of your own cells, since they have different DNA from yours. even worse, there is genetic variation WITHIN an individual, so which DNA gets to be yours? how similar does the DNA have to be for you to own it, and which cells are you going to use as the basis for the comparison?

too many problems, if you ask me. a clone would not be the property of the donor any more than one identical twin is the property of the other. if you used your genetic material to grow TISSUE then that would be one thing, but as soon as a new consciousness exists it is entitled to recognition as an individual.
Is there any reason why we can't say that, in the abscence of consciousness, a person is entitled to do as they wish with genetic material identical (to within whatever necessary parameter) of their own?

i'd say that is a rather huge stumbling block, and i don't see how you could just "let it ride." i mean, if you claim ownership of your genetic material then identical twins would "own" each other. additionally, you would not "own" the mitochondria of your own cells, since they have different DNA from yours. even worse, there is genetic variation WITHIN an individual, so which DNA gets to be yours? how similar does the DNA have to be for you to own it, and which cells are you going to use as the basis for the comparison?

too many problems, if you ask me. a clone would not be the property of the donor any more than one identical twin is the property of the other. if you used your genetic material to grow TISSUE then that would be one thing, but as soon as a new consciousness exists it is entitled to recognition as an individual.
i absolutely agree with what you said there at the end. any new life brought to consciousness is its own. the thought of growing a PERSON who would be my personal repository of spare parts disgusts me. i would only be in favor of cells grown from an embryo made from my dna directly into a spare part through some kind of stem cell magic.

i own my own dna if it is taken from my body. after all, i have a son who has half of my dna, i dont own half of him. but dna from my own cell put into an emptied egg for the purpose of starting an embryo that would be used to create tissue from its stem cells that would be used on me, is mine and OK to use as far as im concerned.

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a379/a379.gif