Posted on 06/10/2004 2:21:32 AM PDT by MadIvan
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The nation should honor President Reagan by committing itself to finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, Rep. Chris Smith said yesterday, but not by using embryos for stem cell research.
Smith, R-Washington Township, who was first elected with Reagan in 1980, yesterday blasted those who have used Reagan's death on Saturday after a decade-long bout with Alzheimer's to advocate embryonic stem cell research.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
How many lives would you have killed in your search? This is not the same as your example of the heart transplant because (1) the donor was already dead before harvest (probably before being chosen for harvest - he or she definitely was not nurtured for days, checked for health, and then killed purposely for harvest), (2) there was evidence that the transplant of hearts could work in *prior* models and protocols in animals (there is no such evidence in embryonic stem cells and (3) The harvest of the organ was for specific treatment and causes, not to see what the potential for donated hearts would/could be.
That mouse experiment took place in the early to mid '90's. According to the article I linked (from PubMed, by the way), the efficiency in acheiving results in cloning and from cloning is not improving, even in animals.
On the other hand, in your search at PubMed, take a look at the results of use of adult and umbilical cord cells.
Yes, I believe that the research on human embryos for stem cells is for research for the sake of research and unfounded. The purpose is for the future of cloned treatments, and the purpose of cloning is selfish immortality at the cost of hundreds of purposely created and destroyed or enslaved humans, virtual twins of the donor.
Why do you want the government to spend tax money on this research, when adult and umbilical cord research is so promising? If the promise of embryonic research is so high, why aren't private and corporate funds jumping on the band wagon, here or in other countries?
It's a test for civilization. Does G-d want us to kill our babies to save ourselves from disease? We need to revere life, but we have entered an ethical gray zone where we have to ask ourselves whether we should use our children to save our parents. Do we know the right answer? G-d is praying for us that we choose correctly.
Since when was science completely divorced from ethics? Are not morals the evidence and source of ethics?
Your statement that science and morals are separate or should be is in itself a moral statement. On what grounds do you base your moral statement, and why are your morals superior to anyone else's?
It is poor philosophy and ethics to engage in any enterprise without considering the consequences (which is itself a moral statement). If there are no morals or ethics in science, then what was wrong with Mengele's experiments or with the Chinese harvest of organs from prisoners?
Death row prisoners are not killed for the benefit of research. Neither are they harvested without their own, specific permission before their death.
Nevertheless, I am uncomfortable with the entire idea because I'm very uncomfortable with the death penalty. If it weren't for the Texas prisoners that escaped a couple of years ago and who then went on a killing spree, I could say I was completely against the death penalty. They changed my mind, although I was influenced by the Oklahoma bombing and would have been similarly influenced by the 9-11 jets-as-bombs.
The problem with IVF is the "extra embryos" or wasteful production of embryos. There are ways to be more ethical, by only fertilizing as many as are planned to be implanted, by only implanting 2 or 3 embryos (using the 5-day old embryo to increase the chances of success with each implantation) or always implanting (over several years) the ones who are produced.
Mengele believed that he had justification for his experiments. The Chinese prisoners' organs are used to cure the recipients of their organs.
These embryos are purposely created because they are "real kids." What else would they be?
BUMP
BUMP
Without doubt, this is the most self-righteous, arrogant, theocratic, and just plain ignorant statement I have ever read on this site, and that's saying a lot.
Seamlole, you've been providing me with a LOT of laughs on this thread, as I watch with amazement your fantasies of a theocratic, socialistic society given words, but that one takes the cake. I would bet good money, however, that you've never said it to someone in that condition.
I eagerly await your next effort. Fanatics of your level seldom disappoint.
Pie in the sky when you die, yes.
The problem is that 500 were purposefully created. Healthy and unhealthy were discarded or put aside in freezers if they were not the "right kind" of embryos. All were created in an innately dangerous, life-threatened/-threatening situation.
There can't be aggression or violence against non-existent lives. In creating the new embryos, there is violence and intended threat of more violence. All members of the human species should have the same right to protection from killing under the law. The law and those of us who make the government that makes the law should not consider human beings interchangeable units, to be built and harvested - canabalized - for parts.
I doubt it. Not that many people are both as zealous as yourself and as hyperbolic at the same time. Most people, when thinking of cannibals, think of tribes of savages in jungles or of Jeffery Dahmer types. It really is not a term which comes to mind when considering researchers attempting to cure disease. However, I guess some get enjoyment out of misusing words, and then patting themselves on the back for their cleverness. I bet you call abortion doctors "serial killers" too, right?
Quit reading so much sci-fi. That's not the discussion. In fact, all the wild scenarios are nothing more than fevered nightmares of people who have mistakenly grafted one issue to another.
"The crippled should choose to remain crippled, and they will be repaid in the next life."
I eagerly await your next effort. Fanatics of your level seldom disappoint.
108 long cut
___________________________________
Good grief.
" - Forgive them, for they know not what they say.- "
Good all. However, for the foreseeable future, far more embryos will be WASTED TOTALLY, than are implanted. There is no logical reason not to use them.
Also, you and I disagree on whether or not an unimplanted embryo is in fact a human yet. Thus, using the "murder" term at this point would be like saying "every sperm is sacred...". Or at least singing it.
Wait'll you see the one about "preventing sexual intercourse"...
I also am amazed at this apparent belief that those who are not of the strict religious background of the zealots here should nonetheless be forced to live their lives by their tenets.
That quote's one for the bookmarks, for sure. You should save it on your homepage.
And my question for you is on what basis does the government point a gun at me and take my money to fund what I see as morally wrong, contrary to the teaching of my religion and contrary to the 5th and 14th Amendments which guarantee a right to life?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.