For those that want God out of the White House....

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

We're talking about two different "lives" here. Sperm is alive. The debate is when is it a sentient human life?
______________________________________

Even infants aren't truly self aware, sentient, most likely. Their brains are learning basic function at that time, vision, motor skills, etc, not so much self awareness. Likely sentience develops with time. The question is, when is that time? Is it ok to kill a new born infant? How about that 6 months gestation infant, ok to abort, but also can survive? Where do you ethically draw the line? Until someone can prove what is or is not self aware, I choose to play it conservatively. I would rather err on the side of caution than make assumptions not supported (or disproved) by science.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[PhillyKev 0]

I believe that until it can survive on it's own without a parasitic relationship with the mother, it is morally neutral to abort it. But the crux of the abortion debate is, are you robbing a potential or current life from a chance at that life. That's a much bigger issue than stem cell research.

Getting back on topic. If there is no harm done to a potential human life for the purpose of gathering stem cells, what is your opposition to stem cell research?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Getting back on topic. If there is no harm done to a potential human life for the purpose of gathering stem cells, what is your opposition to stem cell research?

Because, like I said before, "Harvesting embryonic stem cells from human embryos causes their death and, therefore, terminates a human life" IMO. Causing death, in my opinion, does cause harm to be done. There is no conclusive proof otherwise.

Edit to add: Other than that, I have no problem with it (i.e. adult stem cell research).

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

I believe that until it can survive on it's own without a parasitic relationship with the mother,

What about life support?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Because, like I said before, "Harvesting embryonic stem cells from human embryos causes their death and, therefore, terminates a human life" IMO. Causing death, in my opinion, does cause harm to be done. There is no conclusive proof otherwise.

Again, I'll agree that killing embryos for the purpose of stem cell research shouldn't be permitted. But what if the embryo is not killed for that purpose?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe that until it can survive on it's own without a parasitic relationship with the mother,

What about life support?

Doesn't a mother have a right to stop life support on her child anyway?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe that until it can survive on it's own without a parasitic relationship with the mother,

What about life support?

Doesn't a mother have a right to stop life support on her child anyway?

That would be arguable -

Perhaps after a hearing. One that states that the chemicals involved in childbirth and pregnancy make her fit to make those decisions.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Again, I'll agree that killing embryos for the purpose of stem cell research shouldn't be permitted. But what if the embryo is not killed for that purpose?

I think that killing them by other means is also wrong (i.e. in-vetro fertilization where by multiple embryos are implanted and then, after some development, some are selectively terminated). I'm assuming that you're referring, however, to those that might be frozen for later use but instead could be used for stem cell research? It's still killing the embryo whatever the purpose for them was before or as a byproduct of a previous process. There is still an ethical issue.

[wmw999 2,157]

Why are there always so many more men than women involved in most of the abortion discussions that I read and hear? And now you're trying to decide if being pregnant makes a woman unfit to decide by its very nature.

If embryos are created and then not implanted for whatever reason, it strikes me, even using a theistic perspective, as wasteful of what God has helped us to create to then throw it away. When people die their bodies decompose, and turn into worm food.

Why shouldn't embryos that are going to end up discarded be used for stem cell research? If the idea is not to have any embryos be discarded, well then you're going to have to go up against the whole assisted-pregnancy thing. That's a toughie.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

If embryos are created and then not implanted for whatever reason, it strikes me, even using a theistic perspective, as wasteful of what God has helped us to create to then throw it away. When people die their bodies decompose, and turn into worm food.

Who are we to make the decision of which ones are “allowed” to live or not? Even if someone is harvesting embryos for the purpose of allowing one or two to grow and they’re going to discard the rest, who are we to profit off of that? Granted, they’re going to die anyway but it was an ethical wrong in the first place.

Quote

Why shouldn't embryos that are going to end up discarded be used for stem cell research?

It would be like a doctor performing experiments on people who were going to be terminated anyway in a death camp. The benefits of the research might be great but at what expense?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The benefits of the research might be great but at what expense?

You tell me? In your first example, obviously the suffering of the person is the expense. What is the expense to the embryo that is going to be terminated anyway? Are you contending it is aware of some kind of pain or discumfort?

[wmw999 2,157]

What are you doing to stop in-vitro fertilization?

Because that's the cause of these extra embryos. Yes, I do think there's a difference between an embryo that's several cells big and a baby. That's as deeply-held a belief as yours.

Otherwise, I'd wonder why women who aren't celibate don't hold funerals every time their period is late.

Killing people is wrong to us because we are people, and we are sentient. It's wrong to me, too. Why are we more valuable to God than his beloved creation the beef cow? Why are we more loath to kill dogs for meat than cows? It's wrong because we are in charge, and we like dogs better.

Saying that God loves people more is awfully ethnocentric. We should be trying to treat all creatures with respect and kindness.

Even Republicans (for the humor-impaired, that last was a joke)

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

You tell me? In your first example, obviously the suffering of the person is the expense. What is the expense to the embryo that is going to be terminated anyway? Are you contending it is aware of some kind of pain or discumfort?

That’s not the point. You’re benefiting from the termination of a life whether they “feel” it or not.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Saying that God loves people more is awfully ethnocentric. We should be trying to treat all creatures with respect and kindness.

Even Republicans (for the humor-impaired, that last was a joke)

Whew....glad that was a joke. For a minute there I thought you were serious that republicans deserve equal respect

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

That’s not the point. You’re benefiting from the termination of a life whether they “feel” it or not.

And? People inherit money every day. It's morally neutral. If you kill a person for the purpose of collecting an inheritence, that is wrong. But if they die and you benefit, that's not. Same thing here. Stem cell research is morally neutral. If you kill embryos to collect stem cells, you could argue that is wrong. If they are dying anyway, what harm is being done?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

What are you doing to stop in-vitro fertilization? Because that's the cause of these extra embryos.

One problem at a time... Let’s stick to the focus of stem cell research.
Right now, however, I’m just not going to participate in it. My Sister-in-law for example has a fertility problem. She asked my wife to donate eggs that would be mixed with my Brother-in-law’s sperm and inserted into her for development. We refused because we couldn’t come to an agreement as to what would be done with the excess in the case that they all developed. We would not agree to terminate some during the process.

Quote

Yes, I do think there's a difference between an embryo that's several cells big and a baby. That's as deeply-held a belief as yours.

Of course, there’s a difference but how do you know when life begins on which to base your decision for termination?

Quote

Otherwise, I'd wonder why women who aren't celibate don't hold funerals every time their period is late.

One’s a natural process and the other is artificial. There is no ethical dilemma with a natural process.

Quote

Killing people is wrong to us because we are people, and we are sentient. It's wrong to me, too. Why are we more valuable to God than his beloved creation the beef cow? Why are we more loath to kill dogs for meat than cows? It's wrong because we are in charge, and we like dogs better.

Saying that God loves people more is awfully ethnocentric. We should be trying to treat all creatures with respect and kindness.

I’m actually trying to not get into a theological argument with this subject; however, your response confuses me. I know you’ve stated in the past that you’re Christian and attend church, etc. If you truly hold Christian beliefs, I don’t see why you don’t have a biblical answer for these questions. The second statement sounds awfully pantheistic.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

And? People inherit money every day. It's morally neutral.

You’re comparing inherited money with a nucleus required to sustain life?

Quote

If you kill a person for the purpose of collecting an inheritence, that is wrong. But if they die and you benefit, that's not.

Even if you “caused” their premature death.

Quote

Same thing here. Stem cell research is morally neutral. If you kill embryos to collect stem cells, you could argue that is wrong. If they are dying anyway, what harm is being done?

They’re only going to “die anyway” if they are unfrozen, discarded, used in stem cell research, etc.

[livendive 8]

Quote

There is no non-religious argument against abortion.

Sure there is. Essentially all ethical systems have at their core a principle of respecting/valuing human life. Two complete atheists can have a terrific debate on the moral issues surrounding abortion without either of them invoking a god of any sort.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Zenister 0]

no. lots of things have life. that isn’t what we are talking about.

all life is not human.
i can provide a clear definition (based on observable scientific fact) for when a fetus is human vs has the potential to become human.

you take 'life' every day for the needs of your own. Unless of course you believe you survive on inorganic material
so you can stop trying to build your strawman

as to late term abortions? if the fetus is capable of surviving on its own without heroic medical attention (and remember science not religion is responsible for the expansion of when a fetus is viable and for the extension of human life at the opposite end of the envelop as well) then it is an independent member of its species and should be given the full rights and protections of one. Before then, it’s continued existence, and it’s potential to become human is totally dependent on the host (mother) who, as an existing independent member of the species, has rights a fetus does not.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[pajarito 0]

As someone said sometime before, "I like feta cheese. It tastes good on gyros."

Time to eat, I'm starving, gotta go! Later...

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Some non religious people, I dare say, also believe that life begins prior to the time defined by Zenister and might also believe that experimenting with existing stem cells is wrong.

Find one.

So do you adhere to Zenister's definition of when life begins? Do you believe that it only becomes human at the moment the umbilical cord is cut and it starts breathing on its own? Or how about earlier at 24 weeks when the lungs are developed enough to sustain life? How about much earlier when it grows fingers and toes and a brain? I don't think you've got to base the decision on religion. It seems very logical to me that, if you don't know for sure otherwise, you might be doing the wrong thing by killing the life at any stage. What scientific proof is there that life does not begin at conception?

life might, sperm came from you living, as did the egg, but it still isn’t human yet. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to make my definitions for me when it seems you don’t really read what I posted. I have never mentioned anything about umbilicals so stick to your own argument and desist in mischaracterizing mine.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

They’re only going to “die anyway” if they are unfrozen, discarded, used in stem cell research, etc.

So are you now saying that keeping embryos frozen is morally better than the embryos being removed from that artificial state and dying? Are you opposed to passive euthenasia (taking someone off life support)?

[Zenister 0]

don’t get to caught up in the life support argument. They are separate issues, someone who is a functioning individual and is currently on life support due to accident, illness, disease etc already has the rights given to members of their species, and does not lose those rights due to the use of artificial support.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about morality. I'm not conceding that an embryo has any more rights than a person. Just the opposite in fact. I'm questioning the rationale of blocking stem cell research that would save human lives in order to keep an embryo in stasis to prevent its death.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You miss the point too. Legislation proposed or enacted because it is in line with Bush/Ashcroft's religious beliefs IS forcing their morality on the people.

Same sex marriage amendment
Stem cell research ban
...

I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with it.

Kettle, meet pot: given your examples and turning them around, the Massachusetts and California gay marriage laws, or the defeat of the gay marriage amendment, are "forcing their morality on the people" equally as much.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706