Replies

You make a moronic argument, and a not-so-subtle attempt of calling me a Nazi which makes you no better than idiot liberals who use the same tactic.

Someone you would call an "idiot liberal" - Nat Hentoff, who is also an athiest (so you can't denigrate his religious views as you have done to others on this thread) shows the parallels between the dehumanization language of abortion and killing embryos for stem cell research and the language used to rationalize genocide. So the comparison to Hitler's views on Slavs is quite appropriate here, despite your attempts to avoid the clear comparison by whining about being called a Nazi (which I did not do).

How about you make an argument that supports your position that a frozen clump of chemicals is "alive"?

Frozen clump of chemicals. Hey, we're all chemicals, when you get down to it. If we're just that, then it's easier to rationalize killing us.

But back to your question as to whether the embryo is alive - if it is implanted in a human womb, it will most likely develop into a human. So yes, it is alive - if it were not alive, that would not happen.

Hey, Lunatic, I'll take a crack at this one:

An embryo most certainly IS alive, before being frozen. When frozen it is not dead, it is in suspended animation. If by reasonable means it can still be restored to growth, activity, etc., then it is still alive.

Various organisms can be frozen, and then restored to "normal" life. Someday, quite possibly, this will apply even to full grown humans. (And what will we do if we find frozen life on Mars, someday? Destroy it? Or try to restore it?)

Now, the REAL argument is whether an embryo is a human being. Or, put another way, where do you draw the line? There's just no way to pin that down, after conception has occurred. The only truly defining event I can come up with is conception itself.

I must admit, I was unaware of "snowflake babies", and was beginning to lean toward Senator Frist's take on this. No longer. I can now only support use of embryo's that have such serious defects that it is certain they would not survive pregnancy. (This might sound silly, but I'd guess that studying the defective embryo's might itself give unexpected and valuable insights.)

Besides, I agree with the argument that if embryonic stem cell research is so promising, why aren't the big Health Care companies pouring big 'ol $$ into it? (Other than they won't if they think the gov't will fund it for them!) The amount of money already spent by the Feds on stem cell research would be chump change to the medical industry, if it was really THAT promising / worth the industry's while.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think there are lot's of areas where government funded research is valuable. But in this case, considering all the high profile types pushing for embryonic stem cell research, why don't they just use their energy to collect private donations? Convince Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Or make some donations themselves?