Looking for one reason not to use already frozen embryos for stem cell research

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Termagant
Experimenting on human embryos is Frankenscience and demonstrates no sanctity for human life. At least if they're thrown away no one can use them!

Many diseases may be afflicted on people by God for reasons we do not understand. Who are we to dispute God's will?

In-Vitro fertilization may in fact be against God's will. Infertile people may be being punished by God for reasons we do not understand. Also, lesbians can now have embryos implanted and that is a horrible affront to our culture of heterosexual families.

Why do you think God's will is to allow suffering? Perhaps this is god's answer to the millions of prayers to help (insert relative here) when they were dying. God does not come down and magically heal people, he helps people through others. Who is to say God did not use these scientists to help these people. If little sally asks God to cure his mom of MS and a doctor does it through Stem Cell research, would that not be a miracle? The hand of god does not come down from the clouds to help people.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HomerJS
I have yet seen an answer why throwing a frozen embryo in the garbage is better then experimenting on the same embryo where there may be a cure for disease?

Who those who are insisting life begins at conception...do you realize a heatbeat does not begin until an average of 5 weeks after conception. However take the reverse, I don't believe there has ever been a case of life if the heart has stopped for let's say 24 hours.

I'm not insisting that I have the absolute answer life begins when the heart starts beating but an argument can be made absent the lack of scientific evidence.

It is not a matter of the technicalities of life. It is a matter of irrational feeling. Everybody knows instinctively that life begins at conception because it's then that you have the first potential of a uniques one-of-a-kind human being. The question, it seems to me, is whether we should make an exception to the sanctity of life by intentionally ending a life that will not be lived earlier that it would die naturally in the garbage or freezer for the potential benefit of research that might save others who are actually living. I see no way around the fact that the embryo is human and we are ending it's potential as a living human being. Anybody who does not face this fact, in my opinion, puts us for sure on a slippery slope where the taking of human life for new and other 'good reasons' becomes normal. Humanity is ill and when that illness flowers humanity itself is at risk.

Well said Moonbeam :thumbsup:

Fern

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

In vitro fertilization has left almost 500,000 fertilized eggs for which almost all will never be adopted. Give me one reason not to allow federal funding on these embryos? They will either be destroyed or remain frozen until they are no longer viable for implantation.

Doesn't this take away the argument of creating life for research?

Don't you get it man? The Gawwd-being breathes a soul into the embryo at conception! Using those embryoes would be murder! You're killing a human soul, you gawdless heathen!

There's a person in there with a soul! Praise the Lawrd!

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Termagant
The crux of President Bush's argument is that as part of America's Culture of Life, the Sanctity of Life needs to be protected. Embryos are fertilized eggs, not just eggs or sperm, and hence can become children. There are scientific efforts to use adult stem cells as well as stem cells from umbilical cords. The fact that embryos are thrown away by fertility clinics is bad enough. We should not use public funds to add insult in injury and tinker with those potential human lives and turn them into laboratory fodder. It is very much like organ harvesting innocent babies.

There is no law against conducting this morally-questionable science using private money.

The Daily Show did this best - they showed his wonderful sanctity of life speech, then cut to his nonchalant mention of the civilian casualties in Iraq, 30,000 at the time. Life for embryos that will be discarded - precious. Harming very much alive, sentient Iraqi citizens just wanting to live in peace - an unfortunate "side effect" of our Iraq campaign.

Originally posted by: Pens1566
If god didn't want us to use stem cell research, why would he have given us the scientific ability to do so????

He didn't, remember? He just gave us naive humans free will, an unguarded tree of knowledge, and said "don't eat from this, stay ignorant you puny creations that I so dearly love, wink wink nudge nudge."

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: dullard

<- Dullard does research on federally supported National Health Institute grants for a living. Dullard's brother is doing his PhD research which includes some stem cell research.

Private companies do things which are likely to return a large profit. The federal governement does things that private companies can't afford or which they can't profit from (military protection for example).

There is no profit in a disease cure. There is substantial profit in disease treatments. Few private companies research cures for diseases with money from their own pocket (once you cure someone, you can't sell them your item ever again). That is why the federal government MUST financially support research for cures (assuming we want cures).

Good post. :thumbsup:

Sad but true. Kind of like consultants. To paraphrase despair.com - because there's a lot of money to be made in prolonging the problem. I've said already about writers of antispam software - what if a method was finally found to erradicate spam completely? They'd go insane to try to stop it, because it'd put them out of business.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: XMan
I'm confused about this whole issue.

Stem cell research is not illegal. There is simply no government funding for it.

If it is such a potential salvation, then why don't companies either a) pony up the money themselves to do the research and have a corner on any developments, or b) why don't big money guys like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, give donations to companies doing the research?

Michael J. Fox's foundation has given several million to a researcher who has had promising results with gene therapy - if this is such a big deal, then why doesn't he solicit some of his rich Hollywood friends to support it?

<- Dullard does research on federally supported National Health Institute grants for a living. Dullard's brother is doing his PhD research which includes some stem cell research.

Private companies do things which are likely to return a large profit. The federal governement does things that private companies can't afford or which they can't profit from (military protection for example).

There is no profit in a disease cure. There is substantial profit in disease treatments. Few private companies research cures for diseases with money from their own pocket (once you cure someone, you can't sell them your item ever again). That is why the federal government MUST financially support research for cures (assuming we want cures).

Good post. :thumbsup:

Seconded.