Political Crossfire Forums

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2091

My question is: Will Bush now push for the outlaw of in-vitro fertilization? This procedure kills many, many more embryos than stem cell research.

Stem cell research would use a small fraction of the embryos that are already destined for the infectious waste incinerators and autoclaves.

If the answer is "no" than the President is nothing more than a hypocrite on this issue and is only doing all this to throw a few crumbs at a constituency who's votes he desperately needs. IOW, he's a phoney on this issue.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

ubikk wrote: My question is: Will Bush now push for the outlaw of in-vitro fertilization? This procedure kills many, many more embryos than stem cell research.

Stem cell research would use a small fraction of the embryos that are already destined for the infectious waste incinerators and autoclaves.

If the answer is "no" than the President is nothing more than a hypocrite on this issue and is only doing all this to throw a few crumbs at a constituency who's votes he desperately needs. IOW, he's a phoney on this issue.
I really doubt he will, besides the hypocricy, the reason will be that in-vitro fertilisation is for making more babies so the loss of embryo's is equivalent to unused sperm.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2091

Selfish_Meme wrote:
I really doubt he will, besides the hypocricy, the reason will be that in-vitro fertilisation is for making more babies so the loss of embryo's is equivalent to unused sperm.

So why is it OK to throw away a couple of dozen embryos to make 1 baby, but not OK to use a few to possibly save the lives millions of adults?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

ubikk wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote:
I really doubt he will, besides the hypocricy, the reason will be that in-vitro fertilisation is for making more babies so the loss of embryo's is equivalent to unused sperm.

So why is it OK to throw away a couple of dozen embryos to make 1 baby, but not OK to use a few to possibly save the lives millions of adults?
I don't know you would have to ask the other side for their reasons.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2091

Selfish_Meme wrote: ubikk wrote: ...

So why is it OK to throw away a couple of dozen embryos to make 1 baby, but not OK to use a few to possibly save the lives millions of adults?
I don't know you would have to ask the other side for their reasons.

Well, I am asking. No one has replied thus far.

I'm just trying to understand the logic, if there is any. People should be consistent.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Sorry, I think he's a hypocrite as well. I can't argue it.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

ubikk wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote:
I really doubt he will, besides the hypocricy, the reason will be that in-vitro fertilisation is for making more babies so the loss of embryo's is equivalent to unused sperm.

So why is it OK to throw away a couple of dozen embryos to make 1 baby, but not OK to use a few to possibly save the lives millions of adults?

I am against both if it makes you feel any better. We should not be messing around with nature the way we are. I am pro-natural selection. If you or your partner are sterile I am sorry for you I truly am. However, we shouldn't be making new human beings just to casually discard or dissect them.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

AllAmericanMan wrote: I am against both if it makes you feel any better. We should not be messing around with nature the way we are. I am pro-natural selection. If you or your partner are sterile I am sorry for you I truly am. However, we shouldn't be making new human beings just to casually discard or dissect them.

Natural? What is natural? Biologically, the value of human life is near nothing. Mentally and morally in this modern age, the value of human life has increased (death penalty, war, and now abortion). You can't tell me that balls of cells have that much value.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Ek0nomik wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I am against both if it makes you feel any better. We should not be messing around with nature the way we are. I am pro-natural selection. If you or your partner are sterile I am sorry for you I truly am. However, we shouldn't be making new human beings just to casually discard or dissect them.

Natural? What is natural? Biologically, the value of human life is near nothing. Mentally and morally in this modern age, the value of human life has increased (death penalty, war, and now abortion). You can't tell me that balls of cells have that much value.

Balls of cells or clumps of cells is not an accurate description of what I am talking about. Were talking about human embryos, human life at its most immature level. I value it like I would a new born baby, there is no difference to me. Both are simply young human beings. Human life is the epitome of value, and immature human life is the epitome of innocence. Why should we abuse our power to create life knowing that much of this life will be destroyed?

You know we never think of what we should do, only what we could do. Well we have the potential for good and evil, and I can think of no greater evil than destroying innocent human beings.

Izzibeth · Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 423

AllAmericanMan wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I am against both if it makes you feel any better. We should not be messing around with nature the way we are. I am pro-natural selection. If you or your partner are sterile I am sorry for you I truly am. However, we shouldn't be making new human beings just to casually discard or dissect them.

Natural? What is natural? Biologically, the value of human life is near nothing. Mentally and morally in this modern age, the value of human life has increased (death penalty, war, and now abortion). You can't tell me that balls of cells have that much value.

Balls of cells or clumps of cells is not an accurate description of what I am talking about. Were talking about human embryos, human life at its most immature level. I value it like I would a new born baby, there is no difference to me. Both are simply young human beings. Human life is the epitome of value, and immature human life is the epitome of innocence. Why should we abuse our power to create life knowing that much of this life will be destroyed?

You know we never think of what we should do, only what we could do. Well we have the potential for good and evil, and I can think of no greater evil than destroying innocent human beings.

i don't believe your argument makes much sense in this case. "we should not be messing around with nature the way were are"? in that case should we stop researching and providing vaccinations because we are "messing with nature" by getting people vaccinated for viruses that may or may not have killed them 'naturally'? should we not practice medicine? do surgery? etc. (i could go on forever) because it is "messing with nature"?

unfortunately, if you are going to make that argument it does not make sense to only include one thing and not everything.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

AllAmericanMan wrote: Balls of cells or clumps of cells is not an accurate description of what I am talking about. Were talking about human embryos, human life at its most immature level. I value it like I would a new born baby, there is no difference to me. Both are simply young human beings. Human life is the epitome of value, and immature human life is the epitome of innocence. Why should we abuse our power to create life knowing that much of this life will be destroyed?

You know we never think of what we should do, only what we could do. Well we have the potential for good and evil, and I can think of no greater evil than destroying innocent human beings.

But yet again, biologically speaking, the value of human life is near nothing.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Ek0nomik wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Balls of cells or clumps of cells is not an accurate description of what I am talking about. Were talking about human embryos, human life at its most immature level. I value it like I would a new born baby, there is no difference to me. Both are simply young human beings. Human life is the epitome of value, and immature human life is the epitome of innocence. Why should we abuse our power to create life knowing that much of this life will be destroyed?

You know we never think of what we should do, only what we could do. Well we have the potential for good and evil, and I can think of no greater evil than destroying innocent human beings.

But yet again, biologically speaking, the value of human life is near nothing.

Why would I look to biology to value human life? I feel compassion for human life out of the goodness of my heart, not a textbook. I look to biology to tell me what is human life, and nothing more.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Izzibeth wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: I am against both if it makes you feel any better. We should not be messing around with nature the way we are. I am pro-natural selection. If you or your partner are sterile I am sorry for you I truly am. However, we shouldn't be making new human beings just to casually discard or dissect them.

Natural? What is natural? Biologically, the value of human life is near nothing. Mentally and morally in this modern age, the value of human life has increased (death penalty, war, and now abortion). You can't tell me that balls of cells have that much value.

Balls of cells or clumps of cells is not an accurate description of what I am talking about. Were talking about human embryos, human life at its most immature level. I value it like I would a new born baby, there is no difference to me. Both are simply young human beings. Human life is the epitome of value, and immature human life is the epitome of innocence. Why should we abuse our power to create life knowing that much of this life will be destroyed?

You know we never think of what we should do, only what we could do. Well we have the potential for good and evil, and I can think of no greater evil than destroying innocent human beings.

i don't believe your argument makes much sense in this case. "we should not be messing around with nature the way were are"? in that case should we stop researching and providing vaccinations because we are "messing with nature" by getting people vaccinated for viruses that may or may not have killed them 'naturally'? should we not practice medicine? do surgery? etc. (i could go on forever) because it is "messing with nature"?

unfortunately, if you are going to make that argument it does not make sense to only include one thing and not everything.

Im going into the health field myself, as a radiologist. Treating existing human beings and artificially creating human beings then killing them are entirely different. It makes a lot of sense not to artificially create human beings while still caring for those who have been created naturally. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2091

AllAmericanMan wrote: ubikk wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote:
I really doubt he will, besides the hypocricy, the reason will be that in-vitro fertilisation is for making more babies so the loss of embryo's is equivalent to unused sperm.

So why is it OK to throw away a couple of dozen embryos to make 1 baby, but not OK to use a few to possibly save the lives millions of adults?

OK, I can respect that view. I'm a moderate on this subject. If you want to outlaw the process making the embryos, that's fine.

However, if you want to allow the embryos to be created and then the extras destroyed when they could be used to stop so much suffering, then I am against that reasoning. I think that's wasteful and immoral.

All this embryo adoption is silly. They're just keeping them frozen. You can't just adopt all the embryos and keep them on ice forever. Most people will still have babies the old fashioned way.

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

Doesn't the idea of a baby being able to be produced inside a test tube serve as evidence in itself of the biological value of life to be relatively low?

Gitana · Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:15 am Post subject:

Embryo adoption..? That's a new one on me. Let me guess; people are actually trying to adopt embryos to prevent them from being used in research - and to legitimatize them as 'potential human beings' for the future fight against pro-choice laws? (How'd I do?)

My entire problem with reasoning like that is that those ideologists can ignore an existing, feeling, suffering, homeless/parentless child who could be adopted, and yet get emotional about embryos or zygotes or 3-week-old dividing cells...having the same rights/status as that child.

To answer the topic question: I doubt we'll see legislation along these lines. It would attack the fundamentalist/family-oriented/heterosexual-marriage-only base that has supported this administration. Besides, fertility clinics make a fortune off these couples, and this admin is all for & invested in big medical profits.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Ek0nomik wrote: Doesn't the idea of a baby being able to be produced inside a test tube serve as evidence in itself of the biological value of life to be relatively low?

There is no such thing as biological value.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: those ideologists can ignore an existing, feeling, suffering, homeless/parentless child who could be adopted, and yet get emotional about embryos or zygotes or 3-week-old dividing cells...having the same rights/status as that child.

I have never met a single person with which that was true.

Gitana · Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject:

Quote: I have never met a single person with which that was true.

I have. I have also met people who are positively apoplectic about the idea of abortion, but who would never consider adopting an un-aborted child. Bit of a problem there, no?

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

according to a recent survey there were 1.7 to 2.7 straight couples looking to adopt for evry child up fo adoption. so for those who say we dont have enough ppl to adopt they are wrong. the proplem is that the parents are dispersed while the children are concentrated in cities