Political Crossfire Forums

[John]

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.


Able to reproduce these cells? By cloning embryos...AKA FARMING human beings as a product. It's sick.

[Faet]

John wrote: 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.


Able to reproduce these cells? By cloning embryos...AKA FARMING human beings as a product. It's sick.

Why is it sick?

[Nathyn]

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 embryonic cells are creating as a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. Doctors create several samples, just in case one doesn't fertilize properly. By that reasoning: Should we ban in vitro fertilization or require them to refrigerate all embryonic cells for eternity?

CCD wrote: 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.
So, embyronic cells should be refrigerated forever?

Technically, these embryonic cells, these "humans," could outlive the average human lifespan. If they are refrigerated, they could last centuries. They have hardly any microcellular development, much less actual organs or higher brain functions.

Plus, they have been able to grow a culture of embryonic stem cells without the destruction of any new embryos. (Link) The laws passed, however, make no such distinction upon whether it leads to the destruction of embryos, but simply restrict embryonic stem cell research, altogether.

Joseph Ratzinger saw no problem in serving in the Nazi military because it was the pragmatic thing for him to do. I see no reason why he should try to impose his moral beliefs upon the rest of us.

perdidochas wrote: 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.
I never claimed otherwise.

Anyway, I consider the definition of "human life," to be totally subjective. For Enlightenment philosophers, an entity is human because of rationality and the capability for moral responsibility. By that definition, most people (including children) and the mentally challenged aren't human. Every argument for what defines "human," is inherently circular, because you cannot derive oughts from facts.

perdidochas wrote: 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......
You need to distinguish embryos from embryonic stem cells: Let's say that human brain cells were useful for research (and they are). Now, let's say scientists needed to destroy a living human brain each time they extracted any human brain cells. That would obviously be wrong. But then, let's say scientists could extract brain cells without killing the brain or could grow brain cells from existing samples without killing any new brains. That is what scientists are now capable of doing -- of creating new cultures of embryonic stem cells without destroying new embryos -- and current laws still stand in the way.

Bans upon stem cell research are also in violation of Constitutional law. The court ruled in Roe V. Wade that, up until a certain point, the definition of human life is subjective. Now, if it's permissible for fetuses to be aborted, then surely, it's permissible for embryos to be used for experimentation. It makes no sense to allow abortion, yet ban stemcell research.

[Nathyn]

John wrote: 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.


Able to reproduce these cells? By cloning embryos...AKA FARMING human beings as a product. It's sick.
That's a fallacy of division. Embryos are made up of embryonic stem cells, but each embryonic stem cell is not a "human being," or else each fetus would be multiple human beings. A "person," even according to those who define embryos as human beings, is defined as a cluster of such cells, not each cell by themselves. If they can re-create such cells, they aren't "farming humans," because they aren't creating new embryos -- just new cells.

[Norbert]

An issue no one brought up is that a lot of the embryos are leftovers from early term abotions... so if one is opposed to abortion, one is most likely opposed to embryonic stem cell research... i see no problem with Adult stem cell research, however. On a side note, look at the cures discovered from adult vs. embryonic... ul find it quite surprising.

[Nathyn]

Norbert wrote: An issue no one brought up is that a lot of the embryos are leftovers from early term abotions... so if one is opposed to abortion, one is most likely opposed to embryonic stem cell research... i see no problem with Adult stem cell research, however. On a side note, look at the cures discovered from adult vs. embryonic... ul find it quite surprising.
Adult stem cells don't have the same theoretical potential and I don't think anybody's trying to ban adult stem cell research.

Even if you're opposed the abortion, even if you consider it murder -- how does that justify allowing others to suffer, by stopping them from researching possible cures?

Some mentioned the controversial use of cadavers, above, and I thought it was pretty relevant.

[feederband]

John wrote: 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.


Able to reproduce these cells? By cloning embryos...AKA FARMING human beings as a product. It's sick.

No it is going to help the sick...Oh wait maybe the sick should just pray for a cure...Oh wait they did ...They died....

[perdidochas]

Nathyn wrote: Norbert wrote: An issue no one brought up is that a lot of the embryos are leftovers from early term abotions... so if one is opposed to abortion, one is most likely opposed to embryonic stem cell research... i see no problem with Adult stem cell research, however. On a side note, look at the cures discovered from adult vs. embryonic... ul find it quite surprising.
Adult stem cells don't have the same theoretical potential and I don't think anybody's trying to ban adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cells have actual potential. There are actually cures and treatments out there that involve adult stem cells, not just pipe dreams, like has occurred so far with embryonic stem cells.

www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042302.asp
Nathyn wrote: Even if you're opposed the abortion, even if you consider it murder -- how does that justify allowing others to suffer, by stopping them from researching possible cures?

Rascher, in his research on hypothermia on concentration camp prisoners, thought the same thing.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: But embryonic cells are creating as a byproduct of in vitro fertilization.

When the industry starts really kicking in there will be all kinds of dubious products containing stem cells, using those embryos (which is wring to, IMHO) won't be enough any more. It will require some type of factory farming methods to supply the demand, and then we will be basically grinding human beings up to mass market shampoo and wrinkle cream.

[Shady]

perdidochas 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.

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......

The difference being those cells are going to be destroyed anyway, are not human life and never will be human life, as opposed to Dr. Rasher's experiments on living human beings.

Regardless, you are still denying ME a chance to cure MY disease, because of YOUR moral dilemma. You are directly infringing on my rights, I am infringing on none of yours. No one would force to use any medicine derived from stem cell research or to donate any of your own stem cells.

[John]

Nathyn wrote: John wrote: 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.


Able to reproduce these cells? By cloning embryos...AKA FARMING human beings as a product. It's sick.
That's a fallacy of division. Embryos are made up of embryonic stem cells, but each embryonic stem cell is not a "human being," or else each fetus would be multiple human beings. A "person," even according to those who define embryos as human beings, is defined as a cluster of such cells, not each cell by themselves. If they can re-create such cells, they aren't "farming humans," because they aren't creating new embryos -- just new cells.

You need an embryo in order to "create" embryonic stem cells.

[John]

Shady wrote: perdidochas 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.

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......

The difference being those cells are going to be destroyed anyway, are not human life and never will be human life, as opposed to Dr. Rasher's experiments on living human beings.

Regardless, you are still denying ME a chance to cure MY disease, because of YOUR moral dilemma. You are directly infringing on my rights, I am infringing on none of yours. No one would force to use any medicine derived from stem cell research or to donate any of your own stem cells.

You really believe that the supply would stay within abortion victims?

That's a joke.

And I don't really care what you want...it's wrong. It isn't your "right" to be cured through immoral means.

[Shady]

John wrote: Shady wrote: perdidochas 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.

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......

The difference being those cells are going to be destroyed anyway, are not human life and never will be human life, as opposed to Dr. Rasher's experiments on living human beings.

Regardless, you are still denying ME a chance to cure MY disease, because of YOUR moral dilemma. You are directly infringing on my rights, I am infringing on none of yours. No one would force to use any medicine derived from stem cell research or to donate any of your own stem cells.

You really believe that the supply would stay within abortion victims?

That's a joke.

And I don't really care what you want...it's wrong. It isn't your "right" to be cured through immoral means.

You don't have the right to impose your morality on me either. As far as things go, no, I don't believe the supply would stay within abortion victims. Nor would it have to since we could create more stem cells from the existing ones. Do you believe that research done by examining cadavars is immoral? Perhaps you shouldn't have any surgery done on you since much of what we know in regards to surgical techniques was initially learned through research of cadavars. And you know that most religions once condemned using cadavars as immoral.

[Todd D.]

Quote: The difference being those cells are going to be destroyed anyway, are not human life and never will be human life, as opposed to Dr. Rasher's experiments on living human beings.
True, but while usually I don't subscribe to the "Slippery Slope" argument, here I actually do think that it's relevent. Yes, THESE embryos are going to be discarded anyway, but do we, in reality, really utilize in vetro fertalization enough in this country (and with couples who would consent to this practice) enough to supply the demand that this research would require? I tend to think that the answer is no, and if it is, where would the other embyrotic stem cells come from? If your answer is the artificial fertalization of an egg for the explicit purpose of harvesting those stem cells, surely you can at least recognize how someome can view that as "harvesting humans", right? Under that context, the definition of where life begins plays a very important role, and in my opinion, when life is involved, you MUST err on the side of caution.

Quote: Regardless, you are still denying ME a chance to cure MY disease, because of YOUR moral dilemma. You are directly infringing on my rights, I am infringing on none of yours. No one would force to use any medicine derived from stem cell research or to donate any of your own stem cells.
It's not about my rights, it's about the rights of the life that people feel an embryo is. Rights can not contradict other rights, so your right to seek the cure to a disease can not contradict someone else's right to life (For example, if you needed a kidney, your quest for a cure would not include killing me for my kidney).

Quote: Do you believe that research done by examining cadavars is immoral? Perhaps you shouldn't have any surgery done on you since much of what we know in regards to surgical techniques was initially learned through research of cadavars. And you know that most religions once condemned using cadavars as immoral.
That is indeed the enforcement of morality, because a cadaver is not a living being (nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any Christian denomination ever suggested it was). That objection came from the belief in "Ressurection of the body" and was forbidden much in the same way Cremation was. That, however, was a simple matter of consent between the (formerly) living person / executor of his or her estate and the doctors. This is different. This involves an entity that very well could be a living being, yet is unable to represent themselves or protect themselves from assault or deprivation of their rights. Unfortunately, that difference causes your analogy to fail, because this is not merely the "enforcement of a religious edict", this is a perfectly rational objection to what most people can recognize as something that is at least arguably a human life.

[Nathyn]

John wrote: Nathyn wrote: John wrote: 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.


Able to reproduce these cells? By cloning embryos...AKA FARMING human beings as a product. It's sick.
That's a fallacy of division. Embryos are made up of embryonic stem cells, but each embryonic stem cell is not a "human being," or else each fetus would be multiple human beings. A "person," even according to those who define embryos as human beings, is defined as a cluster of such cells, not each cell by themselves. If they can re-create such cells, they aren't "farming humans," because they aren't creating new embryos -- just new cells.

You need an embryo in order to "create" embryonic stem cells.
You used to. Not anymore. According to Wikipedia, a scientist recently developed a way to remove the stem cells without killing the embryo. I remember hearing, in another story, about how scientists had been able to grow embryonic stem cells from existing cells, without even needing an embryo. In either case, it's possible.

[psholtz]

Shady wrote: Regardless, you are still denying ME a chance to cure MY disease, because of YOUR moral dilemma. You are directly infringing on my rights, I am infringing on none of yours. No one would force to use any medicine derived from stem cell research or to donate any of your own stem cells.
Dude...

Your health problems in America have *absolutely* NOTHING to do w/ stem cell research..

10-4, copy that?

The air you breath in America is poisoned..
The water you drink in America is poisoned..
The food you eat in America is poisoned..
The vaccines you get in America are poisoned..
The medicines your doctor gives you in America are poisoned..

Starting to catch a cluebrick or two as to where your health problems might be originating from?

Dead doctors don't lie, do they?

You know what the average lifespan of a U.S. doctor is?

It's 57 years.

20 years short of the national average.

You want to go to your local Murder, Inc. sales rep and get health care "advice/medicine/surgery" from him when he can't even keep himself alive beyond the age of 57? You want him to throw a few stem cells your way and you think that'll fix your problems?

Are you insane?

You know why doctors die so young?

It's because they prescribe themselves their own pharmaceutical drugs AND THOSE "DRUGS" ARE MURDEROUS TOXIC POISONS!!

Stem cells will do absolutely nothing to save you.

Absolutely nothing.

Neither your body, nor your Soul.

[psholtz]

Todd D. wrote: That objection came from the belief in "Ressurection of the body" and was forbidden much in the same way Cremation was.
Yeah.. I'm really going to want to "resurrect" into what my earthly body looks like a good 3-6 months after death.. :tu: :roll:

Cremation is a much cleaner, saner and spiritual way to go..

* Is it not written in your Scriptures that your God is a consuming fire?
* Is it not written in your Scriptures that from dust you came and to DUST thou shalt go?

Burial of dead corpses is literally a curse upon the Earth.

Literally..

[psholtz]

John wrote: And I don't really care what you want...it's wrong. It isn't your "right" to be cured through immoral means.
That's correct..

I agree w/ you, John..

And more importantly, it's not anybody's "right" to sit around and have Nanny Doctor wait upon him and "cure" him of diseases that he himself brought upon himself through reckless living, poor diet and lack of exercise..

[Flashbang88]

I am a Christian and I have never understood people against stem cell research. Stems cells are not human beings and they will not necessarily develop into them. They have no feelings or emotions. They are random collections of organic material. Yet here we are worried about whether we offend them. Offend what? Disrespect the sanctity of what? I would much rather respect the sanctity of actual human beings who are dying from diseases that maybe, just maybe, could be treated if we could research stem cells. Why don't we protect living people? Why don't we protect our mothers and brothers and loved ones instead of a cell? Remember these cells will be thrown out anyway. Thrown away! How is throwing them away protecting their sanctity? Please. People need to stop being ignorant and start thinking about reality. Everyone else in the world is researching stem cells. We are behind because we are being retarded! And the reality is, eventually, this country will study and freely examine stem cells. Its just a matter of time. Its progress. Within 10 years probably. All we are doing now is procrastinating. We really can do better than this.

[John]

psholtz wrote: Shady wrote: Regardless, you are still denying ME a chance to cure MY disease, because of YOUR moral dilemma. You are directly infringing on my rights, I am infringing on none of yours. No one would force to use any medicine derived from stem cell research or to donate any of your own stem cells.
Dude...

Your health problems in America have *absolutely* NOTHING to do w/ stem cell research..

10-4, copy that?

The air you breath in America is poisoned..
The water you drink in America is poisoned..
The food you eat in America is poisoned..
The vaccines you get in America are poisoned..
The medicines your doctor gives you in America are poisoned..

Starting to catch a cluebrick or two as to where your health problems might be originating from?

Dead doctors don't lie, do they?

You know what the average lifespan of a U.S. doctor is?

It's 57 years.

20 years short of the national average.

You want to go to your local Murder, Inc. sales rep and get health care "advice/medicine/surgery" from him when he can't even keep himself alive beyond the age of 57? You want him to throw a few stem cells your way and you think that'll fix your problems?

Are you insane?

You know why doctors die so young?

It's because they prescribe themselves their own pharmaceutical drugs AND THOSE "DRUGS" ARE MURDEROUS TOXIC POISONS!!

Stem cells will do absolutely nothing to save you.

Absolutely nothing.

Neither your body, nor your Soul.

And don't forget about the milk. They pasteurize milk so they don't have to keep the conditions of the cows clean. :wink: