Stem Cell Research

[Tigra00]

I am really getting sick of the generic blanket "one-size-fits-all" statements about "fundamentalists." I don't even know what the heck you guys are describing about that word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a Christian Fundamentalist, however I could care less about vaccines for animal testing. After all, those vaccines save millions of lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If some good can come from Stem Cell, then whatever. As long as the embryos are obtained in an ethical way, I am fine with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious how you can ethically come about an embyro. :P They're all from abortions and the like, so.

[Barihawk]

 

I am really getting sick of the generic blanket "one-size-fits-all" statements about "fundamentalists." I don't even know what the heck you guys are describing about that word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a Christian Fundamentalist, however I could care less about vaccines for animal testing. After all, those vaccines save millions of lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If some good can come from Stem Cell, then whatever. As long as the embryos are obtained in an ethical way, I am fine with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious how you can ethically come about an embyro. :P They're all from abortions and the like, so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miscarriages, if the mother allows.

[Fire_Flame01]

Oh, and I wonder how many anti-stem-cell research people eat eggs in the morning. Or is a chicken's life not worth saving and a human's is? :P.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAHAHAHA! :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, you made my day...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

do you realise that you have to have a female chicken (a hen) and a male chicken (a rooster) to be able to have chicks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no "embryo's" inside it unless its fertilised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know ill probably get flamed for it and no, im not an expert on the matter, but yesterday on some documentary i saw, it explanded the thing out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, the reason why i opposed to it is this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The embryo is a life form, think of it,as if its lying dormant for it to be transported to a woman. This has the potential then to make a child. I know that this research could possibly cure diseases such as diabeties (my mum actually has diabities, so dont try and say that your some hippy that doesnt know what its like to live with someone with a debilitating disease.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point is this. YOUR KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. What if an embryo had the potential to be your sister, your brother or your best friend? what if it were to be the next mother teresa, van gough or michael Jackson (actually, bad example :uhh: ) but do you see my point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITS NOT SCIENTISTS RIGHT TO PLAY GOD! and decide who lives and who dies and who has the chance of living.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW killing innocent lives is wrong, especially before they try every option with adult stem cells, because the medical feild can use adult cells, and they are having massive break throughs with this, their claim is that the embroyonic cellsare easier to structure with the cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(thanks for reading my point of veiw, ill get flamed... i dont care, this is my opinion and im intitled to it, just like your intitled to yours. Sorry if there are any spelling or gramatical errors, btw, i probably spelt embryo wrong, but oh well)

[Barihawk]

Oh, and I wonder how many anti-stem-cell research people eat eggs in the morning. Or is a chicken's life not worth saving and a human's is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missed this one. Tigra...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breakfast eggs are unfertilized. See, when hens lay eggs at egg farms, it's pretty much the chicken version of menstruation in human females...although much more natural. The unfertilized eggs still form regardless if they are inseminated or not, and must leave the body. Hens lay eggs on pretty a regular basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are breeding chickens, those eggs (which are inseminated by roosters) are cared for either by the mother herself, or in incubation chambers, and the young are sold for either food or to lay eggs for either purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not everything in life works like it does in cartoons.

[bull912000]

Oh, and I wonder how many anti-stem-cell research people eat eggs in the morning. Or is a chicken's life not worth saving and a human's is?

 

 

 

Well, in many views of life (including mine), the purpose of animals is to sustain human life. The chicken will be eaten either way. However, I don't see any humans being eaten in in our culture any time soon.

 

 

 

Either way, I stand by my decision to remain neutral at the moment. Like I said: I think it is the over all debate of is it worth saving a life or creating another.

[Tigra00]

*Shrug* I wasn't aware it was unfertilized. I thought they just froze them before they could mature past embryo status, since an egg yolk IS an embryo, afterall. It was mostly a joke anyways, so I don't feel too dumb. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess my next argument would be why the constitution allows all religious people to be religious all they like and do so in peace, but we're not allowed to further science because religious people say so. And let's not confuse anything, it is religious people in the way. Religion has now invaded politics and everyone knows it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just hope they sit back and realize that our fathers before us didn't have to let them practice religion freely, but they did...So we should be able to practice science. It isn't in the constitution, you could argue, but neither are a lot of things, and most things religious people whine about are not there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyday science and facts > special interests ANY day.

[Barihawk]

*Shrug* I wasn't aware it was unfertilized. I thought they just froze them before they could mature past embryo status, since an egg yolk IS an embryo, afterall. It was mostly a joke anyways, so I don't feel too dumb. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess my next argument would be why the constitution allows all religious people to be religious all they like and do so in peace, but we're not allowed to further science because religious people say so. And let's not confuse anything, it is religious people in the way. Religion has now invaded politics and everyone knows it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just hope they sit back and realize that our fathers before us didn't have to let them practice religion freely, but they did...So we should be able to practice science. It isn't in the constitution, you could argue, but neither are a lot of things, and most things religious people whine about are not there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyday science and facts > special interests ANY day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ban on stem-cells is because of the way that embryos are obtained. Most are obtained by use of aborted fetuses, and the abortion practice used to obtain the fetuses is banned in almost every state (abortion past the first trimester, that is).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is in the constitution, article 10. This article gives states any powers not gauranteed in the Constitution to the federal government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State laws so heavily debated like abortion are left to referendum, which is a vote of the people. Therefore, the people make the laws in said cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is at the heart of the Constitution Tigra. The debate is when life starts...while a human may not be breathing and thinking at conception, it's cells certainly are...If they are alive, then the Constitution applies rights to them, and aborting them would be murder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If not, who cares? Unfortunately, it's not that simple of a debate.

[lawrencekill]

 

*Shrug* I wasn't aware it was unfertilized. I thought they just froze them before they could mature past embryo status, since an egg yolk IS an embryo, afterall. It was mostly a joke anyways, so I don't feel too dumb. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess my next argument would be why the constitution allows all religious people to be religious all they like and do so in peace, but we're not allowed to further science because religious people say so. And let's not confuse anything, it is religious people in the way. Religion has now invaded politics and everyone knows it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just hope they sit back and realize that our fathers before us didn't have to let them practice religion freely, but they did...So we should be able to practice science. It isn't in the constitution, you could argue, but neither are a lot of things, and most things religious people whine about are not there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyday science and facts > special interests ANY day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ban on stem-cells is because of the way that embryos are obtained. Most are obtained by use of aborted fetuses, and the abortion practice used to obtain the fetuses is banned in almost every state (abortion past the first trimester, that is).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is in the constitution, article 10. This article gives states any powers not gauranteed in the Constitution to the federal government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State laws so heavily debated like abortion are left to referendum, which is a vote of the people. Therefore, the people make the laws in said cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is at the heart of the Constitution Tigra. The debate is when life starts...while a human may not be breathing and thinking at conception, it's cells certainly are...If they are alive, then the Constitution applies rights to them, and aborting them would be murder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If not, who cares? Unfortunately, it's not that simple of a debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually the yolk is the food supply for the embryo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, what about plants, they are also made of cell, but people who support no animal/stem cell research still have to digest some kind of cell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They say it's wrong to kill an animal to eat it, well is it not wrong to kill plants to eat them? Then there's the, we don't need to eat meat for survival argument. Yes I guess so, you can survive your entire life without meat but you're still harming an organism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's the psychological thought process?

[Barihawk]

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animals are animals...they only have rights in regards to cruelty. Humans are given a completely different and more important set of rights. Plants are non-sentient, they have no rights, but still have some protections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are mixing up fundamentalists with environmentalists or something...

[apinagez]

That 'every embryo used in stem cell research is a life wasted' talk is one of the biggest loads of hypocrisy today in the world.

 

 

 

Most people who don't support stem cell research are the people who support wars all across the world. That's not just hypocrisy, that's also incongruency: so a life of an embryo that, odds are, wouldn't even be born is worth more than the life of both foreigners and americans who host, or directly fight, a war?

[Barihawk]

That 'every embryo used in stem cell research is a life wasted' talk is one of the biggest loads of hypocrisy today in the world.

 

 

 

Most people who don't support stem cell research are the people who support wars all across the world. That's not just hypocrisy, that's also incongruency: so a life of an embryo that, odds are, wouldn't even be born is worth more than the life of both foreigners and americans who host, or directly fight, a war?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soldiers choose to fight, fetuses do not choose to be a part of medical research.

[apinagez]

I'm not only talking about soldiers, I'm talking about civil deaths.

[deloriagod]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point is this. YOUR KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. What if an embryo had the potential to be your sister, your brother or your best friend? what if it were to be the next mother teresa, van gough or michael Jackson (actually, bad example :uhh: ) but do you see my point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the embryo was going to be the next Van Gough or Michael Jackson, but instead was used for stem cell research, then we would go on with life as normal. And how exactly can you say that we're killing innocent people? They don't have any feelings and haven't even developed to the point of being recognizable as human to the naked eye. I've said this before and I'll say it again, if we don't start counting their age until they're born, then why give them human rights until then?

[Barihawk]

I'm not only talking about soldiers, I'm talking about civil deaths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I may support wars for just causes, but I do not laud the deaths of innocents. Luckily, modern technology allows us to be more picky about who we kill. Unfortunately, mistakes in that technology lead to civilian losses. In addition, our fight in the Middle East has seen the death of many civilians not due to American attacks, but attacks by insurgents and Al-Queda bombers who simply do not care who they kill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Likewise, I support the search for a cure for Diabetes (my mother died from it, and I will probably have it), but what about the innocent bystanders without a say in their deaths? In war, it is the civilians who have no choice in their death. In this matter, it is the unborn (and don't give me that "life begins at birth" bullhockey, it's not like the Ob/Gyn breathes life into the child when it exits the womb by smacking it's butt.) who are casualities...of what, pray tell? Their parents not caring enough about them to let them live? The child has no say in their death before "life".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The scenarios are practically equal. The fight for good, with casualties of the innocent. I don't want to see the innocent die in war just as I don't want to see a small life snuffed out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hence lies the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no way to answer your question. Both arguments contradict one another...just one of those philosophical things to ponder for hundreds of years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The end justifies the means, but the means sometimes are just too painful to accept.

[apinagez]

Sorry about your mother, my father has Diabetes too. :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The end justifies the means, but the means sometimes are just too painful to accept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose both the means of the war and of the stem cell researching would be too painful to accept, from your point of view. So wouldn't both be unacceptable?

[VOV]

The ban on stem-cells is because of the way that embryos are obtained. Most are obtained by use of aborted fetuses, and the abortion practice used to obtain the fetuses is banned in almost every state (abortion past the first trimester, that is).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, no, no, no, no. This misinformation is the reason there is such a stigma surrounding embryonic stem cells. Please read my post on the first page of this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of these embryos are the result of abortions nor do they resemble a fetus in any way.

[Barihawk]

Sorry about your mother, my father has Diabetes too. :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The end justifies the means, but the means sometimes are just too painful to accept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose both the means of the war and of the stem cell researching would be too painful to accept, from your point of view. So wouldn't both be unacceptable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, we can eventually develop ways of fighting wars that will completely eliminate the problem of innocent death, through enough determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stem cell research, on the other hand, requires embryos and fetuses, and that is not going to change (unless they can find a new way of research).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only ethical way to obtain stem cells, in my opinion, is from miscarriages...unfortunately, they are rare in the US and UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just as diplomats find a way to end war without death, I would love for scientists to find another way to research cures without the need for embryos and fetuses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And VOV, at the time of the Stem Cell ban, research was being done from fetuses...mostly aborted ones.

[Viktorkrum77]

 

Sorry about your mother, my father has Diabetes too. :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The end justifies the means, but the means sometimes are just too painful to accept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose both the means of the war and of the stem cell researching would be too painful to accept, from your point of view. So wouldn't both be unacceptable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, we can eventually develop ways of fighting wars that will completely eliminate the problem of innocent death, through enough determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stem cell research, on the other hand, requires embryos and fetuses, and that is not going to change (unless they can find a new way of research).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only ethical way to obtain stem cells, in my opinion, is from miscarriages...unfortunately, they are rare in the US and UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just as diplomats find a way to end war without death, I would love for scientists to find another way to research cures without the need for embryos and fetuses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And VOV, at the time of the Stem Cell ban, research was being done from fetuses...mostly aborted ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They use embyos no more than week old, in laboratory enviorments. And also, what does it matter if you kill a few fetuses, your saving a generation.

[insane]

They use embyos no more than week old, in laboratory enviorments. And also, what does it matter if you kill a few fetuses, your saving a generation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any volunteers?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

The only ethical way to obtain stem cells, in my opinion, is from miscarriages...unfortunately, they are rare in the US and UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is just another name for spontaneous abortion.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

The only ethical way to obtain stem cells, in my opinion, is from miscarriages...unfortunately, they are rare in the US and UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is just another name for spontaneous abortion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. It's accidental abortion. A miscarriage is unintentional, whereas an abortion is planned. Calling it a different name won't change the circumstances.

[Barihawk]

They use embyos no more than week old, in laboratory enviorments. And also, what does it matter if you kill a few fetuses, your saving a generation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hitler said that by killing all the Jews, Germany would be saving a generation of Germans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And your first sentence is moot to me, since I believe that life begins at conception. The cells will become a human, and they are alive. They contain the genetic code of that human. They are human, by nature.

[Kewl_Sabre]

 

They use embyos no more than week old, in laboratory enviorments. And also, what does it matter if you kill a few fetuses, your saving a generation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hitler said that by killing all the Jews, Germany would be saving a generation of Germans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd just like to point out that Hitler was probably mentally insane, and that his killing of Jews is extremely different from using labrartory-created fetuses to ACTUALLY save people's lives. I also understand that you probably know this, and you do have a vague point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I support stem cell research, because I have weighed the cost and the benefit and I think it's worth it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of these frozen fetuses are destroyed anyway - why destroy them when they can be used to save other human lives?

[lawrencekill]

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Animals are animals...they only have rights in regards to cruelty. Humans are given a completely different and more important set of rights. Plants are non-sentient, they have no rights, but still have some protections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are mixing up fundamentalists with environmentalists or something...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure, I'm saying that people who care for animals but don't care for plants are weird. If they're preaching not kill animals etc., then why do they eat plants, I don't get them, guess my paragraph is confusing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That 'every embryo used in stem cell research is a life wasted' talk is one of the biggest loads of hypocrisy today in the world.

 

 

 

Most people who don't support stem cell research are the people who support wars all across the world. That's not just hypocrisy, that's also incongruency: so a life of an embryo that, odds are, wouldn't even be born is worth more than the life of both foreigners and americans who host, or directly fight, a war?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soldiers choose to fight, fetuses do not choose to be a part of medical research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you've never heard of the draft before have you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point is this. YOUR KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE. What if an embryo had the potential to be your sister, your brother or your best friend? what if it were to be the next mother teresa, van gough or michael Jackson (actually, bad example :uhh: ) but do you see my point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the embryo was going to be the next Van Gough or Michael Jackson, but instead was used for stem cell research, then we would go on with life as normal. And how exactly can you say that we're killing innocent people? They don't have any feelings and haven't even developed to the point of being recognizable as human to the naked eye. I've said this before and I'll say it again, if we don't start counting their age until they're born, then why give them human rights until then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I thought you were talking about embryos who were already aborted. If you cut down a tree already, might as well use it for something. You don't waste it cause you think so and so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and what if the next embryo had the potential to cause the world's self-annihilation. Complete nuclear warfare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Innocent as in never done a bad deed yet correct? Well it's like saying a baby Hitler is innocent. Yes he is innocent. But in the future you are not sure what the person will do.

[lawrencekill]

 

Sorry about your mother, my father has Diabetes too. :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The end justifies the means, but the means sometimes are just too painful to accept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose both the means of the war and of the stem cell researching would be too painful to accept, from your point of view. So wouldn't both be unacceptable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, we can eventually develop ways of fighting wars that will completely eliminate the problem of innocent death, through enough determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stem cell research, on the other hand, requires embryos and fetuses, and that is not going to change (unless they can find a new way of research).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only ethical way to obtain stem cells, in my opinion, is from miscarriages...unfortunately, they are rare in the US and UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just as diplomats find a way to end war without death, I would love for scientists to find another way to research cures without the need for embryos and fetuses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And VOV, at the time of the Stem Cell ban, research was being done from fetuses...mostly aborted ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well it's pretty difficult. You could use animals. But then there will be people against that. What kind of solution can you find that pleases everyone and is effective, please tell me.