Political Crossfire Forums

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7717 Location: The Great Satan

Yeah, Michael J. Fox (who has Parkinson's Disease) released a campaign ad for the campaign of the Missouri Democrat, Claire McCaskill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&eurl=

I thought I'd mention it here because of the preponderance of Catholics in this forum and how the Pope has come out against stem-cell research. Now, even if you oppose the creation of embryonic stem cells for research, as Bill Frist pointed out, there are thousands of embryonic stem cells created every year, as a byproduct of in vitro fertilization, for infertile couples. These stem cells will be thrown in the garbage, anyway, and if that's the case, we may as well use them for research. So, banning stem cell research doesn't save "babies," or even embryos. It just hinders science.

Really, I support even the creation of embryonic stem cells, because the cells themselves can now be grown without the creation of either a fetus or an embryos. Human cells are not "babies." It's no different than if they were to take human skin cells and grow them in a lab. They shouldn't be distinct solely because they're embryonic cells. The individual cells, by themselves, are nothing.

EDIT:

typo fix. lab. not label.

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

I am a med student and a STRONG proponent of stem cell research (both embryonic and adult stem cells) but I am an opponent of federal funding of stem cell research, for a variety of reasons. As long as no direct attempt is made to ban private stem cell research I don't really care.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 23756

I'm just opposed to farming little babies and killing them. Their lives are just as important as anyone that research on them might save.

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

John wrote: I'm just opposed to farming little babies and killing them. Their lives are just as important as anyone that research on them might save.

It is not legal "to farm little babies" as you put it. That's a strawman anyway, as you know as well as anybody else that very few of the embryonic stem cells they use would EVER be anything else. Furtheremore, as long as it is privately funded your moral beliefs should not have a right to conflict with my right to life. Specifically life saving medicine that could be developed privately based on embryonic stem cell research ought to be made available to me. Have moral qualms about it? No one is forcing you to use medicine derived from it's research or to offer up your own stem cells to be reseached on.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 23756

Shady wrote: John wrote: I'm just opposed to farming little babies and killing them. Their lives are just as important as anyone that research on them might save.

It is not legal "to farm little babies" as you put it. That's a strawman anyway, as you know as well as anybody else that very few of the embryonic stem cells they use would EVER be anything else. Furtheremore, as long as it is privately funded your moral beliefs should not have a right to conflict with my right to life. Specifically life saving medicine that could be developed privately based on embryonic stem cell research ought to be made available to me. Have moral qualms about it? No one is forcing you to use medicine derived from it's research or to offer up your own stem cells to be reseached on.

Well that's were you and be have chosen different sides. I stand for protecting the innocent...while you choose to look the other way if it could possible help you "Live Forever or Die Trying"

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

John wrote: Shady wrote: John wrote: I'm just opposed to farming little babies and killing them. Their lives are just as important as anyone that research on them might save.

It is not legal "to farm little babies" as you put it. That's a strawman anyway, as you know as well as anybody else that very few of the embryonic stem cells they use would EVER be anything else. Furtheremore, as long as it is privately funded your moral beliefs should not have a right to conflict with my right to life. Specifically life saving medicine that could be developed privately based on embryonic stem cell research ought to be made available to me. Have moral qualms about it? No one is forcing you to use medicine derived from it's research or to offer up your own stem cells to be reseached on.

Well that's were you and be have chosen different sides. I stand for protecting the innocent...while you choose to look the other way if it could possible help you "Live Forever or Die Trying"

First off the thing you so nicely quoted is Yossarian's motto from Catch-22. Good book, I'd recommend you read it.

Secondly, you are still being misleading. You know as well as I do that those embryonic stem cells will be killed whether they are used or not. Don't waste something that could be used to save life because you have moral qualms about it. Nobody is forcing you to use medicine created from stem-cell research or provide your own stem cells.

Your position is the same people once held about cadavars being used to research the human body. Both involve using the dead to develop technique and/or medicine to save the living.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: You know as well as I do that those embryonic stem cells will be killed whether they are used or not.

They wouldn't be killed if no one was making embryos exist outside of the womb in the first place.

ChuckBerry · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 2261 Location: Lafayette, LA

Nathyn wrote: Yeah, Michael J. Fox (who has Parkinson's Disease) released a campaign ad for the campaign of the Missouri Democrat, Claire McCaskill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&eurl=

I thought I'd mention it here because of the preponderance of Catholics in this forum and how the Pope has come out against stem-cell research. Now, even if you oppose the creation of embryonic stem cells for research, as Bill Frist pointed out, there are thousands of embryonic stem cells created every year, as a byproduct of in vitro fertilization, for infertile couples. These stem cells will be thrown in the garbage, anyway, and if that's the case, we may as well use them for research. So, banning stem cell research doesn't save "babies," or even embryos. It just hinders science.

Really, I support even the creation of embryonic stem cells, because the cells themselves can now be grown without the creation of either a fetus or an embryos. Human cells are not "babies." It's no different than if they were to take human skin cells and grow them in a lab. They shouldn't be distinct solely because they're embryonic cells. The individual cells, by themselves, are nothing.

EDIT:

typo fix. lab. not label.

This paragraph from INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) sums up the Catholic position on this subject:

Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological material". In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin fission". By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenceless human beings.

...

Here Christ's words find a new and particular echo: "What you do to one of the least of my brethren, you do unto me"

http://www.catholic.com/library/respect_human_life_cdf1.asp

It is tragic that people like Michael J. Fox must suffer from such diseases, but it is not acceptable to destroy human life to ease that suffering. Not one human embryo is expendable, NOT ONE.

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: You know as well as I do that those embryonic stem cells will be killed whether they are used or not.

They wouldn't be killed if no one was making embryos exist outside of the womb in the first place.

But it happens. Why should we not use those them since we have them? If abortion WAS banned it would be a different debate, but since it's not, that's not the issue at stake here.

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

CCD wrote: Not one human embryo is expendable, NOT ONE.

Agreed. Including those that have diseases that could possibly recover through stem-cell research.

ChuckBerry · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 2261 Location: Lafayette, LA

Shady wrote: CCD wrote: Not one human embryo is expendable, NOT ONE.

Agreed. Including those that have diseases that could possibly recover through stem-cell research.
If by stem-cell research you mean embryonic stem-cell research, your statement makes no logical sense. You cannot both agree with the statement you quoted from me AND be in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

CCD wrote: Shady wrote: CCD wrote: Not one human embryo is expendable, NOT ONE.

Agreed. Including those that have diseases that could possibly recover through stem-cell research.
If by stem-cell research you mean embryonic stem-cell research, your statement makes no logical sense. You cannot both agree with the statement you quoted from me AND be in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

I don't agree with you. I was being satirical.

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 4062 Location: Florida

John wrote: I stand for protecting the innocent...

Really...Then why do you worship a god that doesn't?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 23756

feederband wrote: John wrote: I stand for protecting the innocent...

Really...Then why do you worship a god that doesn't?

I most certainly do.

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 4062 Location: Florida

John wrote: feederband wrote: John wrote: I stand for protecting the innocent...

Really...Then why do you worship a god that doesn't?

I most certainly do.

Sad...Really sad....I'm glad I don't...

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Nathyn wrote: Yeah, Michael J. Fox (who has Parkinson's Disease) released a campaign ad for the campaign of the Missouri Democrat, Claire McCaskill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&eurl=

I thought I'd mention it here because of the preponderance of Catholics in this forum and how the Pope has come out against stem-cell research. Now, even if you oppose the creation of embryonic stem cells for research, as Bill Frist pointed out, there are thousands of embryonic stem cells created every year, as a byproduct of in vitro fertilization, for infertile couples. These stem cells will be thrown in the garbage, anyway, and if that's the case, we may as well use them for research. So, banning stem cell research doesn't save "babies," or even embryos. It just hinders science.

Really, I support even the creation of embryonic stem cells, because the cells themselves can now be grown without the creation of either a fetus or an embryos. Human cells are not "babies." It's no different than if they were to take human skin cells and grow them in a lab. They shouldn't be distinct solely because they're embryonic cells. The individual cells, by themselves, are nothing.

EDIT:

typo fix. lab. not label.

The Catholic Church also disapproves of in vitro fertlization.

Embryonic cells are the precursor to the fetus. These aren't just random human cells, these are the first cells in fetal development. Your argument that they are no different than skin cells is ignorant, and shows that you know little about embryonic development. If you don't understand the science, please don't preach on it.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Shady wrote: CCD wrote: Not one human embryo is expendable, NOT ONE.

Agreed. Including those that have diseases that could possibly recover through stem-cell research.

Similar to Dr. Rascher's (Rascher was one of Mengele's colleagues) argument in experiments with human exposure. He used concentration camp prisoners in experiments to determine the limits of human endurance, and to determine the best ways to revive hypothermic victims. He figured the sacrifice of these subhumans was worth the lives of the people that he would save......

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 23756

Stem cells are not limited to a stole source of embryos.

The reason why this is such an issue is supply and demand. Stem cells gathered by other means involve a middle man. The person donating the cells, mother of the child whose stem cells are taken from the umbilical cord at birth, ECT.

Embryonic stem cell research opens up the opportunity to FARM these cells by culturing human embryos in a lab. It’s evil mad scientist Dr. Mengele Nazi crap…and it’s just plain wrong.

Faet · Joined: 04 Oct 2006 Posts: 67 Location: Florida

John wrote: Embryonic stem cell research opens up the opportunity to FARM these cells by culturing human embryos in a lab. It’s evil mad scientist Dr. Mengele Nazi crap…and it’s just plain wrong.

I disagree. If we were able to reproduce these cells, we would no longer need to get them from the dubious sources where souls a born. And, for the record, if one human life could save many, I'd be for it. Especially a human who has a blank harddrive.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Faet wrote: John wrote: Embryonic stem cell research opens up the opportunity to FARM these cells by culturing human embryos in a lab. It’s evil mad scientist Dr. Mengele Nazi crap…and it’s just plain wrong.

I disagree. If we were able to reproduce these cells, we would no longer need to get them from the dubious sources where souls a born. And, for the record, if one human life could save many, I'd be for it. Especially a human who has a blank harddrive.

Again, that was Rascher's view. If an inferior person's death resulted in saving the life of many in the master race, he was for it......