Stem Cell Research...what if it was your 2 year old?

[lolmom]

Absolutely not.

health.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html

 

[Ilroy]

I would answer
1 - NO
2 - NO
3 - Not sure, but leaning toward no.

And, this is not hypothetical for me. I am one of the many paralyzed folks out there that this baby killing research is supposed to be the huge help for. I will go to my grave in the same condition before benefitting from embrionic stem cell research.
I don’t think we have much worry of that though…the cures are coming from adult cell research and the embryonic tests are resulting in tumors and other problems…but B.O. and the rest with their agenda don’t bother letting the facts get in the way.

 

[Bear_Claw]

What if a building were on fire. Indside were 100 frozen embryos and a group of kids. You cannot save all of them. Which gets your top priority and why?

I ask because if you are going to give equal weight to a blastocyst and a 5 year old, then you really should have no preference on the above choice.

Someone has suggested that such hypothecial situations depend on an emotional instead of a logical response and suggested that chosing the 5 year old was simply an emotional choice, not a logical one. I think the reverse is true. The logical thing to do would be, IMO, to save the 5 year old, the one with feelings, sentiency, loved ones, etc. - for what I think are obvious reasons. And that is why the “anyone who would kill an embryo would also kill a 5 year old for organs” argument falls flat with folks who don’t equate an embryo with a born person. We see the clear dividing line. We don’t see them as “equal” beings, so, no, we would not advocate harvesting organs or anything else from born folks of any age.

This may be the best analogy yet, and it’s soooooo true. Thanks Swan.

 

[Mark77]

What if a building were on fire. Indside were 100 frozen embryos and a group of kids. You cannot save all of them. Which gets your top priority and why?

I ask because if you are going to give equal weight to a blastocyst and a 5 year old, then you really should have no preference on the above choice.

Someone has suggested that such hypothecial situations depend on an emotional instead of a logical response and suggested that chosing the 5 year old was simply an emotional choice, not a logical one. I think the reverse is true. The logical thing to do would be, IMO, to save the 5 year old, the one with feelings, sentiency, loved ones, etc. - for what I think are obvious reasons. And that is why the “anyone who would kill an embryo would also kill a 5 year old for organs” argument falls flat with folks who don’t equate an embryo with a born person. We see the clear dividing line. We don’t see them as “equal” beings, so, no, we would not advocate harvesting organs or anything else from born folks of any age.

This may be the worst analogy yet, and it’s sooooo false, but so typical of the false arguments that made it legal for a mother to murder her own baby (abortion).

First lie, you can’t save all of them! Adult stem cell research has already produced cures and many advances without murdering babies (or for you progressives, utilizing a blastocyst or a few “cells”) so we can save all of them.

Outside of the ethical argument against ESR, common sense says that with adult stem cell research, we are saving lives today. By taking research money from successful adult stem cell research to fund unproven embryonic stem cell research we are actually reducing the cures and advances that could be made now, possibly resulting in deaths and suffering that could be prevented.

Even if adult stem cell cures and advances were nonexistent, embryonic stem cell research would still be unacceptable. It always involves the murder of an innocent human being!

**The false argument that the frozen embryos are not the same, or do not have the same worth as a “born person” and will just be destroyed is also invalid. You can call it a blastocyst or embryo or cells, but if you are honest, it is a human being, just like you were a blastocyst , and an embryo and a pre-born baby once.
**
Science has proven beyond any doubt, that at the moment of conception, the fertilized egg has complete and distinct human DNA in each and every cell (all 3 billion unique encrypted characters). It will continue to divide and become an adult human being, just like you and I did.

Do we really want to use the same argument that the Nazi’s used to experiment on Death Camp prisoners, “they’ll die anyway!”?

Or the argument the Supreme Court used to justify legal slavery, that the slaves were property and less than human (slave owners could legally count them as 3/5’s of a person for advantageous reasons though).

We all want to save lives and prevent unnecessary suffering, but where do we draw the line?

Who decides if I am worth more than you and therefore can murder you for your cells or organs?

This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with RIGHT AND WRONG AND THE FACT THAT THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS WHEN INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE MURDERED IN THE PROCESS.

Thank God that you couldn’t decide that you shouldn’t live because you are just a blastocyst, or an embryo, or a bunch of cells, or whatever other dehumanizing term the attorneys could come up with to describe you as less than human.

You are a perfectly beautiful, unique person, and I am glad that you are alive!!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[JuneBug72]

I agree that the equivalent is a bit over the top, but where does the line get drawn on destroying embryonic life? How is destroying embryonic life that different than paying pregnant teenagers to get a partial late term abortion and harvesting the organs of the partially delivered baby i.e. does waiting 9 months make it any less a crime of murder?

We aren’t talking about late term abortions we are discussing blastocytes which will be destroyed because of their age.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

As long as you can call it a blastocyte I guess it’s not human…

 

[mapleoak]

Using a blastocyte

Embryonic stem cell research does not involve the use of ‘a blastocyte’. It involves the murder of thousands upon thousands of unborn babies. Certainly though, the murder of even just one innocent human life is unacceptable.

that will be discarded because it is too old to be implanted is hardly equivalent to being a nation of flesh eating zombies.

A nation feasting off of the remains of millions of unborn babies is most certainly the equivelent of a nation of flesh eating zombies.

 

[Valke2]

My 2 ½ year old son has type 1 diabetes, and in light of Obama lifting the bans on embryonic stem cell research, I have a few moral questions…

1. If your child had an incurable disease and a cure could be found through embryonic stem cell research, would you use that cure on your child?

Absolutely. No question.

1. If the organization that is in the forefront with adult stem cell research and has come so close to a cure will now be doing research with the ESC (embryonic stem cell) would you still support this org (please note: they are just as likely to find a cure with the adult stem cells verses the ESC) or would you stop supporting them all together?

I would still support them.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

No. I would have to do the moral thing and allow my child to die. I could not, in good conscience save my child through the murder and exploitation of another human being. Yes, my heart would break…and yes, I might hurt worse knowing that if I were just a little less Christian I could save the physical life of my child. It would certainly not be worth losing my soul though. And I pray that I would put my emotions aside and do the RIGHT thing. And that is to NEVER accept that which is morally wrong…which is to profit from the murder of another person.

 

[pnewton]

This may be the worst analogy yet, and it’s sooooo false, but so typical of the false arguments that made it legal for a mother to murder her own baby (abortion).

First lie, you can’t save all of them!

It is not a lie, but an analogy. As such, it can be a good analogy or a bad one. I think it is a good thought experiment, though a poor analogy of the issue on this thread. A building is on fire and there is not time to save both groups. Do so and both will die. Does one prefer on group above the other or does one go to the closest group and save them?

I am no fan of value clarification scenarios when given to kids, but adults can be helped to understand themselves better.

I think it is interesting that in the OP the third question dealt with using adult stem cell therapy and still many have rejected it.

 

[Squishy]

Well, it looks like embryonic stem cell reserch is due to go ahead regardless of the opposition to it. Now i have a question.

If it turns out to be the tressure trove of cures that people are currently hoping. In the future will you all boycotte anything that can trace its origins back to this period, and to stem cell reserch.

I cannot see any mother in good conciouse allowing their child to die when a simple cure is on the market but that cure had its roots in reserch done on embryos.

 

[pnewton]

If it turns out to be the tressure trove of cures that people are currently hoping. In the future will you all boycotte anything that can trace its origins back to this period, and to stem cell reserch.

Hasn’t adult stem cell researd received any knowledge transfer from embryonic stem cell research already? Which came first?

 

[Bennie_P]

We aren’t talking about late term abortions we are discussing blastocytes which will be destroyed because of their age.

Human life starts at conception, you are talking about age discrimation.

We shouldn’t sacrifice humna life to a human made god. The ends dooes not justify the means.

 

[Valke2]

What if a building were on fire. Indside were 100 frozen embryos and a group of kids. You cannot save all of them. Which gets your top priority and why?

The frozen embryos obviously. First it sounds like there woud be less than 100 live children in the building so the embroys represent more life. Assuming that the group of children numbers 100, then you still save the embryos because you know with 100% certainity that the embryos have not sinned at all and that they are therefore the most innocent.

Moreover, odds are that at least a few of the live children are already resented by one or two parents who never intended to have children in the first place. And there is probably at least one child who is adopted by gay parents. With the embryos, you can be certain that only parents who really want children are going to raise them, and you knwo that at least it will be more difficult for two gay men to get their hands on them.

This was really a simple question. A real no brainer.

I ask because if you are going to give equal weight to a blastocyst and a 5 year old, then you really should have no preference on the above choice.

Oh. I didn’t know you mean blastocyst embryos. That changes things as I would be more inclined to rescue the embryos that were the same religion as me.

 

[Squishy]

Hasn’t adult stem cell researd received any knowledge transfer from embryonic stem cell research already? Which came first?

Does the end justify the means? Regardless of the moral impication. Stem Cell Reserch is going to move forward. If it does provide the cures that its promised i hope that you will all do the right and moral thing and boycotte them. But i have the sneaking suspicion many of you will not.

But where exactly does this leave you moraly. You have the ability to save a life. But the cure came at the expense many years ago of ‘innocent’ ‘babys’.

 

[pnewton]

Does the end justify the means? Regardless of the moral impication. Stem Cell Reserch is going to move forward. If it does provide the cures that its promised i hope that you will all do the right and moral thing and boycotte them. But i have the sneaking suspicion many of you will not.

But where exactly does this leave you moraly. You have the ability to save a life. But the cure came at the expense many years ago of ‘innocent’ ‘babys’.

Yet the Catholic Church approves of adult stem cell research, does it not? Did some of the knowledge used in this research come from embryonic stem cell research? If it did, does it mean that all the research is corrupt and should be stopped?

Consider a parallel: should we not treat syphillis because of those who suffered the Tuskegee Experiment?

 

[Squishy]

Yet the Catholic Church approves of adult stem cell research, does it not? Did some of the knowledge used in this research come from embryonic stem cell research? If it did, does it mean that all the research is corrupt and should be stopped?

Consider a parallel: should we not treat syphillis because of those who suffered the Tuskegee Experiment?

Does this not seem a little hypocritical then. On the one hand condemming stem cell reserch and doing as much in their power to prevent it. But being very happy to reap the rewards.

 

[rinnie]

I have thought about this alot. It still comes down to this. IMO of course. Am I going to kill your child so mine can live. Is that not really what it is. To kill one baby to save another. How can your child be more important than mine, or vice-versa.

I cannot see any way that we can say killing is okay. God says no. If we have the faith in God we all say we do, we have to rely on him totally to find us the right answer. And the killing of a inocent baby is not the answer. THis I am sure of.

 

[rinnie]

Does this not seem a little hypocritical then. On the one hand condemming stem cell reserch and doing as much in their power to prevent it. But being very happy to reap the rewards.

Actually I believe you are mistaken. The church has never condemned the research of saving lives. But condemned killing human beings. You may need to check into this but the cord or after birth is what they have found to help saving lives from what I was told.

 

[Newbie2]

We aren’t talking about late term abortions we are discussing blastocytes which will be destroyed because of their age.

Human life starts at conception, you are talking about age discrimation.

We shouldn’t sacrifice humna life to a human made god. The ends dooes not justify the means.

Exactly.

I ask again, JuneBug, what is the moral difference between killing an early–stage embryo and a late-term fetus? Morally, there is no difference in waiting 9 months to kill it.