Stem-cell morality

[CharlestonChad]

To anyone who disapproves of ESC research:



Are you a pacifist? If not, then do you view the droppings of the atom bomb on Japan as a way to actually save lives that would have normally been lost in standard warfare?

If you support the above, then you must also support ESC research because that is a way to potentially save lives that would be lost. Potentially living persons (as defined biologically) will be terminated, but they will feel no pain and they have not developed enough to have thoughts. People that do feel pain and have real lives will be saved from pre-mature death.

 

[KarlMarx]

Are you a pacifist? If not, then do you view the droppings of the atom bomb on Japan as a way to actually save lives that would have normally been lost in standard warfare?

I have a hard time seeing how embryonic stem cell research is the same as warfare.

If you support the above, then you must also support ESC research because that is a way to potentially save lives that would be lost. Potentially living persons (as defined biologically) will be terminated, but they will feel no pain and they have not developed enough to have thoughts. People that do feel pain and have real lives will be saved from pre-mature death.

Again, they're not the same.

Embryonic Stem Cell research uses cells from fertilized human eggs. Those blobs of tissue are considered human or persons by many of us. Per the 5th Amendment, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Abortion does just that.

The decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and then, Nagasaki was made by a president who was given the authority to conduct war. Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1948. In this case, the decision to drop the bomb was made through due process.

The promises of Embryonic Stem Cell Research remain mostly unfulfilled. There is a possibility that it may produce results, but there are also great difficulties to be overcome (rejection by the host body, difficulties in getting the cells to specialize into the desired cell type etc). On the other hand, adult stem cell research has already produced results. I think that I'd put my money on the horse that won some races rather than a pie-in-the-sky contender that makes big promises but has produced few, if any, results.

Oh yes, and if you're going preface your arguments with the words "scientists claim"... I think you should know that most of those scientists work for companies that stand to profit from embryonic stem cell research, so they may not be unbiased. I think I can find scientists who argue exactly the opposite position.

I've said this before, but I believe that it bears repeating. I believe that many people "out there" (and not anyone on this board) are pushing embryonic stem cell research not out of an interest of saving lives but primarily to justify abortion. I really don't think that society should be in a position where it manufactures human embryos just to harvest parts. I wonder how people who support ESC research would feel about harvesting organs from executed criminals in order to save lives? It seems pretty barbaric to me and reminds me too much of the premise made by the movie "Soylent Green". In that movie, in a future world the dead were turned into food for the living.

 

[dilloduck]

To anyone who disapproves of ESC research:



Are you a pacifist? If not, then do you view the droppings of the atom bomb on Japan as a way to actually save lives that would have normally been lost in standard warfare?

If you support the above, then you must also support ESC research because that is a way to potentially save lives that would be lost. Potentially living persons (as defined biologically) will be terminated, but they will feel no pain and they have not developed enough to have thoughts. People that do feel pain and have real lives will be saved from pre-mature death.

I don't believe we dropped the atomic bomb to kill people. The intention was to totally demoralize the Japanese generals and make them realize that thier plan of fighting to the last man was doomed.
Would you sacrifice your "potential" son or daughter so that others "might" feel better or live longer?

 

[Bullypulpit]

To anyone who disapproves of ESC research:



Are you a pacifist? If not, then do you view the droppings of the atom bomb on Japan as a way to actually save lives that would have normally been lost in standard warfare?

If you support the above, then you must also support ESC research because that is a way to potentially save lives that would be lost. Potentially living persons (as defined biologically) will be terminated, but they will feel no pain and they have not developed enough to have thoughts. People that do feel pain and have real lives will be saved from pre-mature death.

Regardless of their attempts to do otherwise, opponents of ESC research simply cannot equate an undifferentiated mass of cells with actual human life.

If Chimpy McPresident were to be morally consistent in his opposition to this research, he would ban it altogether, rather than merely prohibit the use of federal funds for such research. Too many commercial interests are at stake, however, for him to ban such research altogether. And that's what it boils down to with him, as with so many other things...it's not a moral question, it's an economic one.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I don't believe we dropped the atomic bomb to kill people. The intention was to totally demoralize the Japanese generals and make them realize that thier plan of fighting to the last man was doomed.
Would you sacrifice your "potential" son or daughter so that others "might" feel better or live longer?

Again, it's an undifferentiated mass of cells, not an actual human life. The two are not, in any sense, equivalent.

 

[dilloduck]

Regardless of their attempts to do otherwise, opponents of ESC research simply cannot equate an undifferentiated mass of cells with actual human life.

If Chimpy McPresident were to be morally consistent in his opposition to this research, he would ban it altogether, rather than merely prohibit the use of federal funds for such research. Too many commercial interests are at stake, however, for him to ban such research altogether. And that's what it boils down to with him, as with so many other things...it's not a moral question, it's an economic one.

You crack me up Bully. You bitch about "abuse of presidential power" yet state that he should ban embryonic research altogether?

 

[CharlestonChad]

Again, they're not the same.

Embryonic Stem Cell research uses cells from fertilized human eggs. Those blobs of tissue are considered human or persons by many of us. Per the 5th Amendment, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Abortion does just that.

The decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and then, Nagasaki was made by a president who was given the authority to conduct war. Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1948. In this case, the decision to drop the bomb was made through due process.

I consider the Japanese civilian to also be humans, but I viewed the bombing as a way to save lives.

Since the 5th only pertains to Americans, is it okay if we get the ESC's from foreign countries? The research will be done in other countries regardless of what Bush vetos, and America will only fall further behind in the race to cure and save.

The promises of Embryonic Stem Cell Research remain mostly unfulfilled. There is a possibility that it may produce results, but there are also great difficulties to be overcome (rejection by the host body, difficulties in getting the cells to specialize into the desired cell type etc). On the other hand, adult stem cell research has already produced results. I think that I'd put my money on the horse that won some races rather than a pie-in-the-sky contender that makes big promises but has produced few, if any, results.

Oh yes, and if you're going preface your arguments with the words "scientists claim"... I think you should know that most of those scientists work for companies that stand to profit from embryonic stem cell research, so they may not be unbiased. I think I can find scientists who argue exactly the opposite position.

I've said this before, but I believe that it bears repeating. I believe that many people "out there" (and not anyone on this board) are pushing embryonic stem cell research not out of an interest of saving lives but primarily to justify abortion. I really don't think that society should be in a position where it manufactures human embryos just to harvest parts. I wonder how people who support ESC research would feel about harvesting organs from executed criminals in order to save lives? It seems pretty barbaric to me and reminds me too much of the premise made by the movie "Soylent Green". In that movie, in a future world the dead were turned into food for the living.

I've got to go, but I'll reply later

 

[Bullypulpit]

You crack me up Bully. You bitch about "abuse of presidential power" yet state that he should ban embryonic research altogether?

Only to illustrate the moral inconsistencies in his position. But then he's never really been very keen on the moral consistency of his positions.

 

[dilloduck]

Only to illustrate the moral inconsistencies in his position. But then he's never really been very keen on the moral consistency of his positions.

As i was illustrating YOUR inconsistancies.

 

[Bullypulpit]

As i was illustrating YOUR inconsistancies.

Wrong, yet again. Have a nice day!

 

[KarlMarx]

I consider the Japanese civilian to also be humans, but I viewed the bombing as a way to save lives.

So do I. And you're correct, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was seen as a way to bring the war in the Pacific to a quick end and save hundreds of thousands of lives. Military planners long believed that an allied invasion of Japan would have resulted in about 250,000 American deaths, not to mention the civilian deaths. Unfortunately, war is like that, you try to win while saving as many lives of your people as you can while killing as many as the enemy.... it's not a pleasant business, is it?

Since the 5th only pertains to Americans, is it okay if we get the ESC's from foreign countries? The research will be done in other countries regardless of what Bush vetos, and America will only fall further behind in the race to cure and save.

We can't control what is done in other countries, can we? As for importing ESCs from other countries, I think it could be argued that it is like importing body parts of executed Chinese criminals.

 

[dilloduck]

Wrong, yet again. Have a nice day!

:teeth: great debating skills-

 

[Bullypulpit]

:teeth: great debating skills-

I give as good as I get.

 

[dilloduck]

I give as good as I get.

Now THAT gets nominated as "comeback of the year" I bet !

 

[CharlestonChad]

So do I. And you're correct, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was seen as a way to bring the war in the Pacific to a quick end and save hundreds of thousands of lives. Military planners long believed that an allied invasion of Japan would have resulted in about 250,000 American deaths, not to mention the civilian deaths. Unfortunately, war is like that, you try to win while saving as many lives of your people as you can while killing as many as the enemy.... it's not a pleasant business, is it?

Same thing with ESC research. Kill some things that a few consider innocent people, or let a lot die that everyone considers innocent people.

We can't control what is done in other countries, can we? As for importing ESCs from other countries, I think it could be argued that it is like importing body parts of executed Chinese criminals.

I don't see importing body parts to be immoral. I feel that it would be immoral to let a person die if there is a cure.

ESC research has not proven itself yet, but a majority of scientists that have been questioned appear to believe that with enough funding, break throughs are possible.

Abortions are going to continue no matter what. Rape victims, diabetics, and other forms of mothers who cannot survive labor will have abortions. If those fetuses can be used for good, then the tragedy of abortion can at least have one positive. ESC research is not an excuse to avoid the responsibility of a mother, and those abortions will not be justified by the research.

 

[Hobbit]

Same thing with ESC research. Kill some things that a few consider innocent people, or let a lot die that everyone considers innocent people.

I don't see importing body parts to be immoral. I feel that it would be immoral to let a person die if there is a cure.

ESC research has not proven itself yet, but a majority of scientists that have been questioned appear to believe that with enough funding, break throughs are possible.

Abortions are going to continue no matter what. Rape victims, diabetics, and other forms of mothers who cannot survive labor will have abortions. If those fetuses can be used for good, then the tragedy of abortion can at least have one positive. ESC research is not an excuse to avoid the responsibility of a mother, and those abortions will not be justified by the research.

I see a lot of ESC supporters talking about saving lives and whatnot. However, if you're so up on saving lives, why don't we look at a few other things none of you seem to support, such as selling organs. Everybody has several organs that they can live without, such as a second kidney. Using the above example, people die every year waiting for kidney transplants, which depend on a matching donor either dieing in a way that doesn't wreck the kidneys or undergoing painful surgury that will disqualify this person from certain military or law enforcement jobs out of the goodness of his heart. If we allowed kidneys to be sold on eBay, how many lives a year would be saved?

The there's the other aspect of this debate. Currently, there is no law against ESC research, just a lack of federal funding. However, there's not federal funding for a lot of things that are potentially life-saving. Instead, there's private funding.

Right now, pharmaceutical have said that, much like the PS3, they're not willing to fork over a small fortune for 'potential' that may or may not come. What the ESC advoctes want is for the government to force all of us to fund it, instead. I'm not forking over my money for a PS3's 'potential,' and I don't want the govenrment forcing me to fund ESC's 'potential' either.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I see a lot of ESC supporters talking about saving lives and whatnot. However, if you're so up on saving lives, why don't we look at a few other things none of you seem to support, such as selling organs. Everybody has several organs that they can live without, such as a second kidney. Using the above example, people die every year waiting for kidney transplants, which depend on a matching donor either dieing in a way that doesn't wreck the kidneys or undergoing painful surgury that will disqualify this person from certain military or law enforcement jobs out of the goodness of his heart. If we allowed kidneys to be sold on eBay, how many lives a year would be saved?

Who doesn't support selling organs? I've already stated that I support trafficking of human body parts.

The there's the other aspect of this debate. Currently, there is no law against ESC research, just a lack of federal funding. However, there's not federal funding for a lot of things that are potentially life-saving. Instead, there's private funding.

Oh really, can a lab use ESC's extracted in the last few years?

Right now, pharmaceutical have said that, much like the PS3, they're not willing to fork over a small fortune for 'potential' that may or may not come. What the ESC advoctes want is for the government to force all of us to fund it, instead. I'm not forking over my money for a PS3's 'potential,' and I don't want the govenrment forcing me to fund ESC's 'potential' either.

Cry me a fucking river. "Your" money supports so many other pointless programs that do nothing to improve the quality of life that your bitching about gov. spending holds no water. Protest the war if you want to stay true to regulating gov. spending.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Again, they're not the same.

Embryonic Stem Cell research uses cells from fertilized human eggs. Those blobs of tissue are considered human or persons by many of us. Per the 5th Amendment, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Abortion does just that.

The decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and then, Nagasaki was made by a president who was given the authority to conduct war. Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1948. In this case, the decision to drop the bomb was made through due process.

Really? We started the war in 1948? Nearly three years after we dropped the bomb?




Also, I believe this is to dilloduck.
Technically, even if an embryonic stem cell can be called a person, it isn't an American I'm going to give you the appropriate text, and see if you can find what I'm talking about.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[dilloduck]

Also, I believe this is to dilloduck.
Technically, even if an embryonic stem cell can be called a person, it isn't an American I'm going to give you the appropriate text, and see if you can find what I'm talking about.

Your point being?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Even if Embryonic stem cells could be considered people, they aren't Americans. As such, they have no right to due process, etc. But they really aren't people, so it doesn't matter anyway.