Smith: No embryonic stem cells

NJ.Com ^ | June 10, 2004 | TOM HESTER JR.

[MadIvan]

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.

[qam1]

If you can get the informed consent of the embryo, and the embryo is convicted of a capital crime and is sentenced to death, I have nothing against the embryo choosing to donate his or her body for science/medical research.

Well I can't speak for the Embryo but if I were a soul floating around up there and I had only 2 choices between

a) Being an unfertilized egg that can never be a kid and will be "washed out" during the women's (who can never be my mother) period.

Or

b)An Embryo who lifespan may be very short but I may end up helping millions of people live longer and better lives

I think the choice is rather clear, Most normal people or "Souls" would choose B

And preventing the murder of over 100,000 kids, and widespread adoptions by homosexual couples. Yep, I'm fine with that.

For the Gazillionth time there are no kids!! These eggs without IVF never had a shot to become a kid.

The crippled should choose to remain crippled, and they will be repaid in the next life.

Can you give me an example of someone who was crippled in their last life and didn't choose a treatment that is now being rewarded?

And since we are talking about reincarnation who's to say the embryos won't be rewarded in the next life?

[Long Cut]

Check out the post I'm pinging to. Some people are totally 'round the bend.

[Dimensio]

So you're okay with privately-funded embryonic stem-cell research then?

[Bella_Bru]

Hey, we already have someone here who said that the sperm carries the soul.

You're joking, right?

[Long Cut]

Bella, read the thread. No matter where you stand on this research (and I do not have any idea where you stand, myself), you will be amazed at the statements of those on the "NO" side.

I'd seriously doubt anything they say, now.

[jwalsh07]

Of course not but I'm a pragmatist. The utilitarians and technocrats are doing it right now.

I'm not OK with abortion either but it happens every day. Embryos are human life. You once looked just like them. Had you given your informed consent for them to pluck out the goodies and flush the rest, I'd be OK with it.

And before you ask my living will is already in order.

[jwalsh07]

Now one for you so we know where each other stands:

You OK with the government taking my tax money to fund embryonic stem cell research and government paid abortion?

[Dimensio]

You OK with the government taking my tax money to fund embryonic stem cell research and government paid abortion?

No.

[jwalsh07]

Common ground. Ain't FR grand? :-}

[Dimensio]

"Hey, we already have someone here who said that the sperm carries the soul."

You're joking, right? Posting HTML

No, I am not. However, on second glance, the person may have been joking. Hard to say, sometimes.

[Bella_Bru]

I think the poster might have been joking as well. That or he/she was just recently perusing a medical journal from the year 1023.

[Your Nightmare]

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?

Whether or not embryonic stem cells can be used in medical treatments is a matter of fact. It's the objective knowledge. What the fact is about embryonic stem cell treatment is can be determined by science. It's the answer to the question "Can we?"

Whether or not it is morally correct to pursue this area of science is a matter of opinion. It's the subjective belief. It's the answer to the question "Should we?"

[Long Cut]

Unfortunately, the posts at #'s 32 and 97 were not jokes.

[jwalsh07]

Just to be clear, the poster claiming ensoulment in sperm is on YOUR side of the debate. Good luck!

[tpaine]

FR's religious zealots no longer amaze me. -- I've heard it all.

-- As of Now.

[hchutch]

Disgusting sentiments do emerge from some folks here...

[SJackson]

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.

Maybe I missed one, but in all the posts I don’t see many (any?) posts condemning artificial insemination, or any support for banning the practice.

If the case for banning stem cell research rests on the immorality of destroying the fertilized cells, the frequent association here with murder or abortion, the same would apply to AI, since the destruction of fertilized embryos, even if through neglect, is part and parcel of the process.

Regardless of ones position, it seem to me banning, or allowing, stem cell research and artificial insemination go hand in hand, yet I don’t see the connection being made by stem cell opponents.

Just an observation.

[jwalsh07]

Regardless of ones position, it seem to me banning, or allowing, stem cell research and artificial insemination go hand in hand, yet I don’t see the connection being made by stem cell opponents.

Thats because the connection is tenuous at best.

The goal of AI is to create and nurture life. Unused embryos can be used by childless couples looking to adopt. That is a possible solution to destroying them.

The goal of ESCR is a tad more utilitarian in nature. It entails creating life to destroy life to enhance another life which is a line I don't think should be crossed.