Stem-cell morality

[Gem]

even if [they] could be considered people they aren't Americans. As such, they have no right to due process, etc

Not to be argumentative, but didn't the Supreme Court just grant non-Americans the right to due process?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Only POW and "enemy combatants."

 

[Gem]

True...but we've established now that non-Americans have rights. Therefore your earlier argument that humans that aren't born yet might be human...but they aren't American and therefore don't have rights doesn't hold up.

Don't worry...I'm well-aware that this is a silly conversation...I'm just being a pain cause its late.

 

[Mr.Conley]

True...but we've established now that non-Americans have rights. Therefore your earlier argument that humans that aren't born yet might be human...but they aren't American and therefore don't have rights doesn't hold up.

But only special non-Americans have rights, but, if you want to go there, then I say we put them on Medicaid and unemployment insurance because these humans don't have a job. Society needs to protect them.

 

[Gem]

Put the embryos on unemployment? This is turning into a Monty Python skit!

 

[Mr.Conley]

Put the embryos on unemployment? This is turning into a Monty Python skit!

Well those embryos are going to need to feed their families until they can get a job. Besides, when one of us can't get a job pre-birth, isn't society failing all of us.

 

[katie_scarlett]

If it's possible to take stem cells to find cures for diseases such as cancer & alztimers wouldn't the good the research could do out weigh the moral debate? I understand some feel very strongly the embryonic cells are human life. But an embryo can't exsists outside the womb of the mother at that stage in development. So to me it's depends on how you look at it whether at that stage it's a human life or a cell.
Having lost my grandmother this year to alztimers has made me wonder if this kind of research might help others in the future. She suffered for eight years & trust me dying from this disease isn't a pretty picture. It's a cruel way to go as your mind dies & body slowly dies as well. If there was some way to prevent this from happening to others I'm open to it.
If stem cell research could help I wouldn't have a problem with it.
And yes I believe in a womans right to choose on the issue of abortion.
I don't want the goverment to have the say in what a woman can do with her body. And by having choice women are free to decide for themselves if they want to have an unplanned pregnancy or not. Whether it goes against your moral principles or not you have the choice.
Actually I think more emphathise should be placed on preventing pregnancy in this country. Human beings are sexual creatures by nature. People are going to have sex. Simply telling young people to abstain from sex & wait for marriage isn't enough. It amazes me that as open as our soceity is sex is still a kind of tabboo even though it's all over our tv's & magazines.
Better to be upfront about the consquences of sexual activity than to pretend kids aren't going to do it. Anyway my point was if you prevent the unplanned pregnancy there will be no need for an abortion.

 

[Abbey Normal]

If it's possible to take stem cells to find cures for diseases such as cancer & alztimers wouldn't the good the research could do out weigh the moral debate? I understand some feel very strongly the embryonic cells are human life. But an embryo can't exsists outside the womb of the mother at that stage in development. So to me it's depends on how you look at it whether at that stage it's a human life or a cell.
Having lost my grandmother this year to alztimers has made me wonder if this kind of research might help others in the future. She suffered for eight years & trust me dying from this disease isn't a pretty picture. It's a cruel way to go as your mind dies & body slowly dies as well. If there was some way to prevent this from happening to others I'm open to it.
If stem cell research could help I wouldn't have a problem with it.
And yes I believe in a womans right to choose on the issue of abortion.
I don't want the goverment to have the say in what a woman can do with her body. And by having choice women are free to decide for themselves if they want to have an unplanned pregnancy or not. Whether it goes against your moral principles or not you have the choice.
Actually I think more emphathise should be placed on preventing pregnancy in this country. Human beings are sexual creatures by nature. People are going to have sex. Simply telling young people to abstain from sex & wait for marriage isn't enough. It amazes me that as open as our soceity is sex is still a kind of tabboo even though it's all over our tv's & magazines.
Better to be upfront about the consquences of sexual activity than to pretend kids aren't going to do it. Anyway my point was if you prevent the unplanned pregnancy there will be no need for an abortion.

Welcome to the board, Katie Scarlett. It will come to you, this love of the land. There's no gettin' away from it if you're Irish.

A certain number of people are going to kill. It's just in their nature. I wonder if we could just put more emphasis on preventing murder, instead of making it illegal to commit it?

 

[MissileMan]

A certain number of people are going to kill. It's just in their nature.

Are you implying that women are getting pregnant on purpose so they can experience the thrill of an abortion?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Are you implying that women are getting pregnant on purpose so they can experience the thrill of an abortion?

Weird interpretation.

 

[MissileMan]

Weird interpretation.

Really?

You're trying to compare murder to abortion...as a matter of fact, although I'm not sure if you have or not, I have seen abortion called murder by posters on this board. This logically leads to the conclusion that you consider women who get abortions to be murderers and makes my question a valid one.

Edited to add:
I did a search and you have indeed said that women who have an abortion have committed pre-meditated, 1st-degree murder.

 

[USViking]

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?

I am not a pacifist.

I do think the Atom bombs probably saved lives.

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.

No, because it will take hundreds if not thousands
if not millions of stem-cell lives before we can tell
if one single "mature life" can be saved.

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.

NOT "potentially living persons", LIVING persons.

Stem cell People are alive, even if they have no thoughts
(how can you know they have no thoughts?), and feel no
pain (how can you know that either?)

It is the same as saying you would take a new-born baby's life
to save another, more "mature life", and it is disgusting.

 

[Gunny]

Are you implying that women are getting pregnant on purpose so they can experience the thrill of an abortion?

It HAD to hurt coming up with THAT one.

Really?

You're trying to compare murder to abortion...as a matter of fact, although I'm not sure if you have or not, I have seen abortion called murder by posters on this board. This logically leads to the conclusion that you consider women who get abortions to be murderers and makes my question a valid one.

Edited to add:
I did a search and you have indeed said that women who have an abortion have committed pre-meditated, 1st-degree murder.

Irrelevant. Your original response to her statement addresses what is not there, and deflecting with an accusatory question that is irrelevant to your statement doesn't work either.

To clarify for you .... while you may have some aesthetic, clinical/scientifc name for it, the purposeful and willful destruction of human life is defined as "murder," and those perpetrating such action would therefore be "murderers."

But let's not play the dishonest game of comparing a person who has an abortion therefore commits an act of murder with Josef Stalin, Hitler or any other mass murderer. And certainly no one has come even close to saying women were purposefully getting preganant for the purpose of having an abortion. That is an absurd conclusion.

 

[CharlestonChad]

No, because it will take hundreds if not thousands
if not millions of stem-cell lives before we can tell
if one single "mature life" can be saved.

Do you know how stem-cell research is conducted?

Stem cell People are alive, even if they have no thoughts
(how can you know they have no thoughts?), and feel no
pain (how can you know that either?)

How do you think a being has thoughts and pain? An object without a brain, let alone an amygdala, cannot have any emotions and cannot feel pain. So don't give me that bleedingheart liberal BS about how the fetuses or stem-cells can feel pain, and we just don't know it.

It is the same as saying you would take a new-born baby's life
to save another, more "mature life", and it is disgusting.

No, it's disgusting that you would confuse a newborn baby with an ESC. ESC's do not have organs, tissue, nerves, thoughts, or anything that a newborn baby contains.

 

[CharlestonChad]

To clarify for you .... while you may have some aesthetic, clinical/scientifc name for it, the purposeful and willful destruction of human life is defined as "murder," and those perpetrating such action would therefore be "murderers."

Murder is the unlawful ending of another living humans life. ESC's are not living humans, they are cells with potential to create living humans. So to say the destruction of an ESC is murder, then you are also commiting murder when you wear a condom during sex, or your girlfriend is on birth control. A life could be create, but it wasn't, which is the same as what happens when ESC's are destroyed.

 

[MissileMan]

It HAD to hurt coming up with THAT one.


Irrelevant. Your original response to her statement addresses what is not there, and deflecting with an accusatory question that is irrelevant to your statement doesn't work either.

To clarify for you .... while you may have some aesthetic, clinical/scientifc name for it, the purposeful and willful destruction of human life is defined as "murder," and those perpetrating such action would therefore be "murderers."

But let's not play the dishonest game of comparing a person who has an abortion therefore commits an act of murder with Josef Stalin, Hitler or any other mass murderer. And certainly no one has come even close to saying women were purposefully getting preganant for the purpose of having an abortion. That is an absurd conclusion.

1. There was a statement made that "A certain number of people are going to kill. It's just in their nature." This statement was made with 2 purposes. The first was to equate abortion with murder and the second was to ask "if we don't put an emphasis on preventing murders, why should we bother trying to prevent abortions, just make them illegal".

2. Since Abbey is going to call women who get abortions murderers, I assume that she would apply her own statement (the one in quotes above) to women who have abortions.

3. Since it's her assertion that murderers, including women who get abortions using her own standards, kill because it's "in their nature", my question still stands.

4. I don't recall trying to dishonestly compare a woman who gets an abortion with a mass-murderer the likes of Hitler. As a matter of fact, I'm not the one alleging abortion equals pre-meditated, 1st-degree murder. The "game" being played is air-raid practice. When someone throws your own words back at you, you go diving for the nearest foxhole...after dispensing chaff of course.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

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?

h.

The atomic bomb was grossly misused there has been documents proving japan was about to surrender and was on it's last throne.

anyways I support STEM CELL RESEARCH, i even back cloning for it.

 

[Powerman]

I support ESC research

I just don't support the government funding of it

I'd prefer that my tax dollars don't go to ANY type of medical research.

Build roads. Protect the country. Then STFU

We need to reduce the govt as much as possible

 

[CharlestonChad]

I support ESC research

I just don't support the government funding of it

I'd prefer that my tax dollars don't go to ANY type of medical research.

Build roads. Protect the country. Then STFU

We need to reduce the govt as much as possible

So you disagree with Bush's veto for the restrictions of the research, but not the funding aspect, right?

 

[Powerman]

So you disagree with Bush's veto for the restrictions of the research, but not the funding aspect, right?

I suppose you could say that. I wasn't aware that stem cell research was illegal.

But I don't oppose the funding aspect at all. Even though I think he made the right choice for reasons I disagree with, I'm glad he made the right choice.

I'm sick of seeing Americans' tax dollars fund every fucking thing under the sun. It's a complete waste of money.