Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[gopunk]

for those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research for the reason that it is never ok to take the life of another for the gain of others, even if said life was going to be destroyed shortly anyways

my question is about ectopic pregnancies. if you hold the above viewpoint, do you then hold the viewpoint that ectopic pregnancies should not be aborted? in both situations, you will be taking the life of someone who would have shortly been destroyed anyways, in order to save other people(s).

thanks!

edit: i am not talking about anything related to abortions for any reason other than an ectopic pregnancy. the embryonic stem cells in question are obtained from excess embryos that are routinely created by in vitro fertility clinics as backups, embryos that have never been in a human body, embryos that are often just thrown away, embryos that will not ever be used for fertility purposes.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: gopunk
for those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research for the reason that it is never ok to take the life of another for the gain of others, even if said life was going to be destroyed shortly anyways

my question is about ectopic pregnancies. if you hold the above viewpoint, do you then hold the viewpoint that ectopic pregnancies should not be aborted? in both situations, you will be taking the life of someone who would have shortly been destroyed anyways, in order to save other people(s).

thanks!

I got a question for those who support stem cell research for the reason that its always ok to take the life of another for the gain of others. My question is about the mother who wants to kill her 10 year old child with downs syndrome. A 30th trimester abortion if you will. The mother's life would be severely less impacted if we allow her to abort the child in the 10th year. As long as we use it for research as we kill the child, would it not save other people?

thanks!

(You expected a serious answer to your flawed and biased question?)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: gopunk
for those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research for the reason that it is never ok to take the life of another for the gain of others, even if said life was going to be destroyed shortly anyways

my question is about ectopic pregnancies. if you hold the above viewpoint, do you then hold the viewpoint that ectopic pregnancies should not be aborted? in both situations, you will be taking the life of someone who would have shortly been destroyed anyways, in order to save other people(s).

thanks!

I got a question for those who support stem cell research for the reason that its always ok to take the life of another for the gain of others. My question is about the mother who wants to kill her 10 year old child with downs syndrome. A 30th trimester abortion if you will. The mother's life would be severely less impacted if we allow her to abort the child in the 10th year. As long as we use it for research as we kill the child, would it not save other people?

thanks!

(You expected a serious answer to your flawed and biased question?)

There has not been a serious suggestion made that killing innocents after they are born is a good thing, unless they are from the Middle East of course.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

To start with, your argument is fundamentally flawed from the word go. An ectopic pregnancy is hardly comparable to a by-choice abortion. There is no choice with an ectopic pregnancy save both the child and the mother die as the mother bleads to death internally once that falopian tube busts.

There are no if-then statments that apply to abortion as your argument suggests. Each situation is unique with it's own set of determing factors.

Get a clue, this isn't programming class, it's life.

The point here should be "it is never OK to take another life BY CHOICE (mandatory surgical procedures to save the life of the mother or else both mother and child die notwithstanding).

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: gopunk
for those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research for the reason that it is never ok to take the life of another for the gain of others, even if said life was going to be destroyed shortly anyways

my question is about ectopic pregnancies. if you hold the above viewpoint, do you then hold the viewpoint that ectopic pregnancies should not be aborted? in both situations, you will be taking the life of someone who would have shortly been destroyed anyways, in order to save other people(s).

thanks!

I got a question for those who support stem cell research for the reason that its always ok to take the life of another for the gain of others. My question is about the mother who wants to kill her 10 year old child with downs syndrome. A 30th trimester abortion if you will. The mother's life would be severely less impacted if we allow her to abort the child in the 10th year. As long as we use it for research as we kill the child, would it not save other people?

thanks!

(You expected a serious answer to your flawed and biased question?)

well, yes i did. i came here and posted my question in good faith, with an earnest desire to hear your viewpoints and you have posted a response that does not address my question. if you think my question is flawed and biased, it would be helpful if you could qualify that statement rather than post something about murdering infants.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: gopunk
for those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research for the reason that it is never ok to take the life of another for the gain of others, even if said life was going to be destroyed shortly anyways

my question is about ectopic pregnancies. if you hold the above viewpoint, do you then hold the viewpoint that ectopic pregnancies should not be aborted? in both situations, you will be taking the life of someone who would have shortly been destroyed anyways, in order to save other people(s).

thanks!

I got a question for those who support stem cell research for the reason that its always ok to take the life of another for the gain of others. My question is about the mother who wants to kill her 10 year old child with downs syndrome. A 30th trimester abortion if you will. The mother's life would be severely less impacted if we allow her to abort the child in the 10th year. As long as we use it for research as we kill the child, would it not save other people?

thanks!

(You expected a serious answer to your flawed and biased question?)

well, yes i did. i came here and posted my question in good faith, with an earnest desire to hear your viewpoints and you have posted a response that does not address my question. if you think my question is flawed and biased, it would be helpful if you could qualify that statement rather than post something about murdering infants.

Some people are obsessed with killing. Sadly, it happens.

 

[tnitsuj]

I don't think that is a good analogy. Won't an etopic pregnancy often kill both the mother and the fetus? I don't see that as a choice per say.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
To start with, your argument is fundamentally flawed from the word go. An ectopic pregnancy is hardly comparable to a by-choice abortion. There is no choice with an ectopic pregnancy save both the child and the mother die as the mother bleads to death internally once that falopian tube busts.

i don't see how this is any different, than if you let the excess embryos in the fertility clinics go unused. both the embryos and the people who stand to benefit from the research will die.

and i never said anything about by-choice abortion...

The point here should be "it is never OK to take another life BY CHOICE (mandatory surgical procedures to save the life of the mother or else both mother and child die notwithstanding).

so what i'm asking is, why is that withstanding? those surgical procedures are only mandatory if you want to save the mother. but in doing so, she will have benefitted from the destruction of the unborn, wouldn't she?

you can argue that they would have both died otherwise, but that is exactly the situation with embryonic stem cell research. you have a bunch of people suffering with cancer, heart disease, etc. you have a bunch of embryos that were created as backups in fertility clinics, that currently will have no other future than just being dumped out in the garbage. if you do nothing, like in the case with ectopic pregnancy, both parties die. if you destroy the embryo, analogous to destroying the ectopic pregnancy, one will have a better chance at a healthy life.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

The flaw lies in your basis for comparision... See previous post ^^

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I don't think that is a good analogy. Won't an etopic pregnancy often kill both the mother and the fetus? I don't see that as a choice per say.

well cancer and heart disease kill the people that have them... i don't see it as any more of a choice. the only difference is that the connection between the destruction of the unborn and a born human being is further and not as direct in the case of ES research.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
The flaw lies in your basis for comparision... See previous post ^^

i'm not sure if you have seen my latest post. i guess i should have mentioned in my OP that i'm talking about how ES cells are most commonly obtained - from excess embryos in fertility clinics.

 

[JupiterJones]

Originally posted by: gopunk
for those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research for the reason that it is never ok to take the life of another for the gain of others, even if said life was going to be destroyed shortly anyways

my question is about ectopic pregnancies. if you hold the above viewpoint, do you then hold the viewpoint that ectopic pregnancies should not be aborted? in both situations, you will be taking the life of someone who would have shortly been destroyed anyways, in order to save other people(s).

thanks!

GoPunk,
Killing a baby because he/she is inconvienant is a tad different than making the hard decision to kill one person so that another may live (a bit different, also, than "for the gain of others").

Your question is so biased that you give yourself away.

Jup

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: JupiterJones

Originally posted by: gopunk
for those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research for the reason that it is never ok to take the life of another for the gain of others, even if said life was going to be destroyed shortly anyways

my question is about ectopic pregnancies. if you hold the above viewpoint, do you then hold the viewpoint that ectopic pregnancies should not be aborted? in both situations, you will be taking the life of someone who would have shortly been destroyed anyways, in order to save other people(s).

thanks!

GoPunk,
Killing a baby because he/she is inconvienant is a tad different than making the hard decision to kill one person so that another may live (a bit different, also, than "for the gain of others").

Your question is so biased that you give yourself away.

Jup

i'm not sure what you are talking about, where have i ever mentioned anything about killing a baby because he or she is inconvenient???

i don't mean to obscure my viewpoint, i am in favor of ES research. but i am not here to try and convince anybody of anything, i just want to hear how my argument could be refuted.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer
To start with, your argument is fundamentally flawed from the word go. An ectopic pregnancy is hardly comparable to a by-choice abortion. There is no choice with an ectopic pregnancy save both the child and the mother die as the mother bleads to death internally once that falopian tube busts.

i don't see how this is any different, than if you let the excess embryos in the fertility clinics go unused. both the embryos and the people who stand to benefit from the research will die.

and i never said anything about by-choice abortion...

The point here should be "it is never OK to take another life BY CHOICE (mandatory surgical procedures to save the life of the mother or else both mother and child die notwithstanding).

so what i'm asking is, why is that withstanding? those surgical procedures are only mandatory if you want to save the mother. but in doing so, she will have benefitted from the destruction of the unborn, wouldn't she?

you can argue that they would have both died otherwise, but that is exactly the situation with embryonic stem cell research. you have a bunch of people suffering with cancer, heart disease, etc. you have a bunch of embryos that were created as backups in fertility clinics, that currently will have no other future than just being dumped out in the garbage. if you do nothing, like in the case with ectopic pregnancy, both parties die. if you destroy the embryo, analogous to destroying the ectopic pregnancy, one will have a better chance at a healthy life.

Just caught your last post so let me see if I can explain my viewpoint here...


How is that exactly the same situation? Ectopic pregnancies do not happen by choice, and neither to the ectopic abortion procedures (per say). No woman on the face of the planet wakes up one day and says " Iwant to get pregnant and BTW, I'd like this one to be ectopic...." Embryos created in a lab as backups? That's entirely different and shouldn't happen in the first place IMO.

So.. If you want to make the argument that embryo's taken from surgery to correct an ectopic pregnancy should be used for stem-cell research, then I have no problem with that. However, farming embryo's from fertility clinics sets a precident that creating embryo's for the sole purpose of stem cell research is OK. I do not agree...

The difference between these scenarios is one scenario is pre-meditated (and morally objectionable) and the other cannot be prevented.

 

[gopunk]

How is that exactly the same situation? Ectopic pregnancies do not happen by choice, and neither to the ectopic abortion procedures (per say). No woman on the face of the planet wakes up one day and says " Iwant to get pregnant and BTW, I'd like this one to be ectopic...." Embryos created in a lab as backups? That's entirely different and shouldn't happen in the first place IMO.

So.. If you want to make the argument that embryo's taken from surgery to correct an ectopic pregnancy should be used for stem-cell research, then I have no problem with that. However, creating embryo's for the sole purpose of stem cell research is morally objectionable.

The difference here is one scenario is pre-meditated and the other cannot be prevented.

how do you feel about using embryos that are pre-existing? i can understand thta you would want to impose restrictions on the fertility clinics, and i'm frankly surprised that there hasn't been more uproar over them. but the fact is, there are thousands of embryos already sitting in freezers that have two possible fates - research or destruction. thoughts?

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

Originally posted by: gopunk

How is that exactly the same situation? Ectopic pregnancies do not happen by choice, and neither to the ectopic abortion procedures (per say). No woman on the face of the planet wakes up one day and says " Iwant to get pregnant and BTW, I'd like this one to be ectopic...." Embryos created in a lab as backups? That's entirely different and shouldn't happen in the first place IMO.

So.. If you want to make the argument that embryo's taken from surgery to correct an ectopic pregnancy should be used for stem-cell research, then I have no problem with that. However, creating embryo's for the sole purpose of stem cell research is morally objectionable.

The difference here is one scenario is pre-meditated and the other cannot be prevented.

how do you feel about using embryos that are pre-existing? i can understand thta you would want to impose restrictions on the fertility clinics, and i'm frankly surprised that there hasn't been more uproar over them. but the fact is, there are thousands of embryos already sitting in freezers that have two possible fates - research or destruction. thoughts?

Given that situation exactly as stated with only the two possible fates, I think any reasonable person would choose research... obviously. However that does not mean "Make more embryo's for more research." But we both know that givin a green light, "Make more embryo's for more research" is exactly what would happen only it would be masqueraded as yet more excess embryos from the fertility clinics.. Based on that primise, I'm inclined to disagree with using the existing embryos as well.