Oh
God, this is sick
Date: 08/23/2000
From: Informant
Guidelines that would allow US scientists to carry out
human embryo research with federal funds were
issued on Wednesday by the Clinton administration.The long-awaited proposals set the scene for a bitter
battle in Congress between patient support groups,
who focus on the potential medical benefits, and
anti-abortion campaigners, who believe that a week-old
embryo has a right to life.The US guidelines are similar to a set published last week by the UK. The two
documents are likely to create an international momentum toward regulating
embryo experiments, which is either banned or unregulated in other
industrialised countries.But the Clinton proposals, unlike Britain's, do not deal specifically with cloning
research. Mike West, chief executive of Advanced Cell Technologies, said: "The
administration should address the issue because therapeutic cloning is the only
way to make cells for human transfer that will not be rejected."Embryonic stem cells - unspecialised cells obtained from week-old human
embryos - can in principle be directed to develop into any tissue or organ in the
body. They are central to the research of biotechnology companies such as
Geron, ACT, Curist and StemCells Inc focusing on regenerative medicine.Under current US law, companies are allowed to fund embryo research but the
government's National Institutes of Health are not. Mr West said the private
sector might lose out in the short term if the NIH moved into the field but
companies supported the proposals "because this research is important for
humanitarian reasons".The Clinton administration's support for federally-funded embryo research will
be resisted by conservative members of Congress because the microscopic
embryos have to be destroyed to obtain the cells. A number of bills attempting to
block the procedure have been filed.The guidelines stipulate that the fertilised eggs must be obtained from fertility
clinics, using only ones that would otherwise be discarded. No one can be paid
for donations, to prevent the emergence of a frozen embryo market. The donor is
also prohibited from specifying a use for the embryo, to keep people from
creating embryos solely to aid an ailing loved one.In ahair-splitting regulation that has infuriated abortion opponents, public money
may not be used to destroy the embryos. That job will be left to privately-funded
scientists, who will then pass on the embryonic cells. The rule gets around a
Congressional edict that says government money must not be used to harm
fertilised eggs.Scientists say stem cell research will lead to cures for currently untreatable
diseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. The most ambitious
companies believe it will one day be possible to replace entire organs in this
way.Opponents say the importance of embryo cells is questionable, since recent
research suggests that adult cells may be more easily reprogrammed to revert
to an unspecialised state than scientists once believed.The NIH completed its first draft of the rules over a year ago but its final
publication was delayed by public controversy.
***********************************************************
I'd post a comment here, but I can't seem to put into words what I'm feeling.
Problem
being... ?
Date: 08/24/2000
From: JorgeCis
Sorry Info, but there can be a lot of problems with this. Or none at all. Point it out to me, and I'll be happy to discuss this with you. Until then, I can't say anything.
Jorge
Hmmmm...
sounds okay.
Date: 08/24/2000
From: FogBoy
Nope, no obvious problems here. There were lots of POTENTIAL problems, but they seem to have covered all the bases, by using eggs that would otherwise be discarded anyway, in particular.Sounds like they're just out to cure some diseases... very good stuff.
I
am so sick of these liberal Pro-lifers
Date: 08/24/2000
From: Silly_Sillerson
I'm sorry, but what, if I may ask, are these pro-lifer special interest groups snorting?? The fact is, cells in an early embrionic stage are not sentient, they don't have "feelings" or "opinions", they're just a small group of cells. If we could use these to cure these "uncurable" diseases, and maybe even eventually grow new organs, and rid the world of the need for donors, I'm all for this process.These brain dead special interest groups need to wake up, and realize that this would be the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
It's something to think about.....
Silly
this
sickens me as well... <end>
Date: 08/24/2000
From: mindflux
so glad I just ate...
Um,
let's see...
Date: 08/24/2000
From: Informant
Killing babies so they can do research. I'm seeing a problem. I believe life begins as soon as an egg is fertilized. This is just sick to me. They're killing babies so they can do something that they probably don't need anyway. I would sooner die a horrible death than to use anything that comes from this research.I think it's sick that these would be "thrown away" anyway. I'm sick of human beings in general.
"Not sentient" and having "no opinions" could describe a lot of democrats, in my opinion. It's sick to me that people get all upset if you run tests on rats, but when it comes to people, everyone that's opposed are called brain dead.
Understood.
Date: 08/24/2000
From: JorgeCis
And if you would like to die because you're against the research, Info, that's all fine and dandy. Not everyone shares your opinion, however. It's still up for debate when life begins. When there's NO debate, then you'd have a totally unarguable argument. But since there's still a bit of a grey area, then interpretations are allowed.Whether it's needed or not is up for debate. Apparently, it must be, though. Otherwise it wouldn't be tried.
I don't think you're brain dead because you're against this. The only thing I was asking was what was the problem. Like I said, I didn't know what you had a problem with. How do you expect me to discuss this with you if you don't. People have problems with everything. Point it out to me. It wasn't my opinion because I didn't know which opinion you were looking for.
Do you see an alternative in doing this sort of research without using the current method?
Jorge
Jorge...
Date: 08/24/2000
From: Informant
I wasn't yelling at you or anything. I hope it didn't sound like that.The fact that it's still up for debate doesn't make it better. If there's a chance that I had cancer, I'd get medical help, not hope it went away. If there's a chance that life begins at fertilization, should anyone be open to the risk of killing a baby?
I think I read that adult cells might actually be easier to work with... I could be wrong.
Jorge...
Date: 08/24/2000
From: QBall79
"Whether it's needed or not is up for debate. Apparently, it must be, though. Otherwise it wouldn't be tried."That's not true. People try things in the name of convenience or pleasure. People will try things or do things simply because they want to. A prime example is partial-birth abortion. It is never needed to protect the mother, and it is only performed because the woman doesn't want her baby and the doc wants to make a quick buck. This embryo research is just as much wrong and murderous as partial-birth abortion. They are talking about killing very young humans in the earliest stages of development.
"Whether it's needed or not is up for debate. Apparently, it must be, though. Otherwise it wouldn't be tried."
Apply that argument to Hitler's efforts for ethnic cleansing and rethink what you said.
Q-Ball79
http://www.slidersweb.net/
Hey
Ball
Date: 08/24/2000
From: JorgeCis
Try this sentence with water and with whiskey:"Drinking lots of this is good for you."
Stop taking what I say out of context. And don't give me this Hitler bullshit. You know what the fuck I meant.
Jorge
Info
Date: 08/24/2000
From: JorgeCis
I didn't think you were yelling. I just wanted to be clear as to why I didn't have an opinion yet. No harm done. :-)Yes, there IS a chance that life beings at fertilization, but I'm still a bit shaky in that. I guess it's because I need proof as to when a baby is alive. This is why I support abortion (at least one reason why... this is another topic I'll discuss later). Until then, we don't exactly know, so I'm a bit more tolerant of it until it's true.
If using adult cells is better, then that *can* be an alternative. But like I said, until the moment of birth is proven, then I won't say which method is better on this alone. I'd have to look at all the other factors.
On a side note, I'd like to point out that the makers of "Species" agree with you that birth starts at the moment of conception. Did you notice that, by any chance? :-)
Jorge
The
point is being missed here........
Date: 08/24/2000
From: Silly_Sillerson
What I think is being missed here, and, keep in mind, I am not trying to offend anyone, or degrade their opinion,just voice my own, but what is being missed is the fact that what we're talking about here are not "babies." They are a microscopic group of cells that will one day become a sentient being, or a "baby." At that stage, they are nothing but a few simple cells, moving in paths predetermined by the parent's DNA. I think it's ignorant of us to call this a "human being" and I think that if this serves mankind in a big way and helps save many lives, we should take a look at this fact, because, in the end, these embryos are going to be trashed anyway, whether we like it or not.
Might as well be put to a good use.
Silly
That's
not a point, it's an excuse...
Date: 08/24/2000
From: Informant
I don't mean to offend you, but saying that it's only a few cells is illogical. We're all only a few cells doing what is predetermined by our parents' genetics. (for the sake of this discussion anyway, since I'm science guy in here, not stating personal beliefs)Each cell has it's own little "brain". This is a little science fact that I picked up somewhere. So this is a totally different life, no matter how you look at it. To say that this group of cells isn't a human being is saying that a newborn baby isn't either, according to your points. Babies don't think like adults and make decisions and stuff, yet they are alive. Their brains aren't fully developed either, so is it okay to kill a newborn baby like those monsters in China just did?
Jorge, I'm afraid I don't understand your comments either. You're saying that these may be living human beings in your eyes, but until there's proof 100% either way, you're willing to risk it and possibly support the killing of babies? One would think that the old saying "It's better to be safe than sorry" would come into play here.
In my opinion, a disgusting little murdering spree is going on in our world every day with thousands of innocent lives being lost. I only wish there was a way to fight for these lives. I don't blow up clinics and I don't shoot people. But I do see them as murderers who should be put in jail and get what's coming to them. They are without remorse over their actions, and that sickens me.
Informant
Date: 08/24/2000
From: JorgeCis
To be quite honest, I personally believe that a baby is alive when it's born. This is my personal opinion; it always has been. I don't believe in the fact that it's alive at the moment of conception. I respect your opinion that it is, however.What I'm saying is that you may very well be right, and I am very much open to being proven wrong. If the baby is alive at conception and that can be proven, then there will be no doubt in my mind and I will wholeheartedly throw all of my support to your cause.
But understand that we are losing time, efforts, and opportunities if you're wrong. We have a chance at doing some wonderful things for the people who have been proven (more or less) to be alive. Yes, it is good to be safer than sorry in most cases, but is it worth losing people that roam this earth over? I don't... yet.
So this brings up the question of which is more important: the embryo or a human "life" (I put it that way because I don't believe an embryo is alive, but some people do)?
Jorge
Ummm....Silly...
Date: 08/25/2000
From: Le_Modus
Pro-lifers are considered *conservative* not liberal. (I hope this is not a pithy excuse to ditch the Democrats on this Conservative board). I'm not saying there are only conservative pro-lifers. But generally (and when I say generally I mean 90% of the time) pro-lifers are conservative.
Pro-life is backed by the Republicans aka the conservatives.LM
Reply
to Jorge
Date: 08/25/2000
From: ThomasMalthus
You want absolute proof that embryos are living beings before you can condemn the testing? I can respect that. When you think that embryos are worth sacrificing for "already born" human lives, I would have to say how would you know that every embryo would be needed in the research or how would you know that the research would ever come to fruition, to justify all this death?By the way, I know this isn't the perfect argument, but if an embryo isn't a human life, what is it? It's clearly not the sperm and egg anymore, and it's beginning to develop into a tiny human life. I did a report on "Roe v. Wade" and I never understood Blackmun and Co.'s argument about the "nonpersonhood" of the fetus. And don't even get me started on partial-birth abortion.
ThomasMalthus
TM
Date: 08/25/2000
From: JorgeCis
This research is being used for humanitarian reasons, according to Informant's article. If it's used for anything else, then that would be another matter.So, TM, say the embryos are not being used for the humanitarian purposes it's being stated to use. What else could it be used for? No, I do not support embryo usage for non-humanitarian reasons (whichever they may be). But if there's a chance of saving lives, then I support it.
And you're right, the embryo is BEGINNING to develop into a tiny human life. That doesn't mean that it is at that point in time. A somewhat bad analogy: think of a cacoon; it's developing into a butterfly, but it isn't just yet.
Partial birth abortion, believe it or not, does have its uses in aborting certain forms of deformed babies. "20/20" did a coverage on that once. No, I don't think that partial birth abortion (or any kind of abortion, for that matter) should be used ALL the time, however. And I think it's silly for a mother to decide to abort a baby so far into the pregnancy. So this leads to a question: why is she aborting the fetus *at all*? Sometimes she has a good reason, such as a deformity.
Jorge
Jorge...
Date: 08/25/2000
From: QBall79
The difference in what I said about your comment and what you said about mine is that I was using good logic. Yes, I know what you meant, but you were implying that this research must be needed *because it was being tried*. Now if someone said "You must need water to live because you are drinking it," that would be as equally faulty as your statement, as that causal analysis could just as easily be applied to whiskey and proven false.Q-Ball79
http://www.slidersweb.net/
Uh-huh
Date: 08/25/2000
From: JorgeCis
So what the hell are you bringing in Hitler for, James? Did I at all say *anything* about the logic I was using *all the time*??? Point out to me where I said *everything* can be justified this way!!! Point out to me why your statement before was *called for*!!!Logic? Fine, stay logical. And stay ON TOPIC, for goodness sake!!!
And had you bothered to read the rest of my statement, you would have noticed that I asked Informant if there's another alternative!!
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/545/22802/6
"Do you see an alternative in doing this sort of research without using the current method?"
Where the FUCK do you get off????
Jorge
Jorge,
what is your problem?
Date: 08/25/2000
From: QBall79
Your expletive-riddled, attack-filled posts to me are really destroying this attempt at a civilized discussion. You seem to have a problem with that. If you have a personal problem, this is not the time or place to deal with it. I have an e-mail address, and you know it.I pretended to understand your statement in my last reply, but the more I think about it, the more I think, "What on earth was he saying?" I honestly don't follow your reasoning. It must be necessary because they are trying it? That's not an argument for it at all. The fact that you brought up alternatives is irrelevant, and the fact that you didn't refer to your reasoning doesn't make it any less wrong.
There's something called a syllogism. You set up a form of one when you said that fetal tissue research must be needed because they are trying it. You are not only implying that they wouldn't try it if it weren't necessary, but also that the fact that they are trying it means it must be. I can easily see that argument applied to Hitler's efforts. After all, wasn't he just trying to make the world a better place in his own mind? Rid the workd of certain afflictions through experimentation with Jews? Wouldn't the creation of a master race end racism? If it were possible at all, yes, perhaps. But at what cost? The lives of millions of human beings. The same price that will be paid through this fetal tissue research. To say that it must be needed because they are trying it would be just as wrong in each instance.
The butterfly analogy doesn't work too well either, and I'll tell you why. True, while in the cocoon, the creature isn't a "butterfly," but it is in a stage of development. It is the same creature it will be when it is a butterfly, but it is simply in another state at the time. "Butterfly" is simply a stage of that creature's life, like the caterpillar, pupa, and whatever other stages it has. They are simply stages, and metamorphasis is a stage of development, just as a fertilized egg is simply a human being in the earliest stages of development.
Q-Ball79
http://www.slidersweb.net/
My
problem
Date: 08/25/2000
From: JorgeCis
My problem is that you're coming on with stuff that had little or nothing to do with the conversation. You knew what I meant, and you even said so! Yet you're going to pull Hitler into this? What for? I'm talking about the embryos!Yes, my reasoning was wrong. In hindsight, I realize that. SAY SO!!! Don't come to me telling me stuff about Hitler!! Hell... you even said so in your FIRST post!
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/545/22802/8
Read your first paragraph! Did you see me have any problem with that at all? It's your SECOND one that gets me!!
And read my damn statement in the last post. I said it was a "somewhat bad analogy". Of course it doesn't work too well! I pointed that out!!!
The difference between the embryos and Hitler? Am I willing to pay the price he did? Where did I say that? POINT IT OUT TO ME, DAMMIT!! Didn't I say that I don't believe the eggs are alive, and thus I don't think we're paying that much of a price??? I value human life, for God's sake!! What the hell kind of person do you think I am??
And don't lecture me about destroying an attempt at a civilized discussion. YOU were the one who came talking to ME:
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/545/22802/8
I've kept it civil... with everyone else. Why? Because they didn't bring up Hitler. YOU did.
And I'll deal with you whenever I see fit. Make no mistake about that.
Jorge
So
Hitler's an expletive now?
Date: 08/25/2000
From: QBall79
Don't take everything I say as a jab at you, Jorge. I was merely comparing the actions of Hitler to fetal tissue research. You obviously don't believe a zygote is a person, just like a lot of misinformed Nazis didn't believe Jews or blacks were people. I promise I don't mean that in a bad way.I happen to believe a zygote IS a person. A living human being. So from that perspective, this fetal tissue research is NO different from what went on with the Nazis. It is JUST as bad, if not WORSE. And to think our government may help to fund the new holocaust makes me angrier than anything I can remember in recent history.
Q-Ball79
http://www.slidersweb.net/
I'll
try to reply as easily as possible
Date: 08/25/2000
From: Informant
"To be quite honest, I personally believe that a baby is alive when it's born. This is my personal opinion; it always has been. I don't believe in the fact that it's alive at the moment of conception. I respect your opinion that it is, however.What I'm saying is that you may very well be right, and I am very much open to being proven wrong. If the baby is alive at conception and that can be proven, then there will be no doubt in my mind and I will wholeheartedly throw all of my support to your cause. "
I'll address the "alive at birth" part later. However, let me point out that it has been proven that babies are alive before birth. Heart beats and brain waves (the two things that we determine life with for the rest of the human population) are there. More when I comment on the other part.
"But understand that we are losing time, efforts, and opportunities if you're wrong. We have a chance at doing some wonderful things for the people who have been proven (more or less) to be alive. Yes, it is good to be safer than sorry in most cases, but is it worth losing people that roam
this earth over? I don't... yet.So this brings up the question of which is more important: the embryo or a human "life" (I put it that way because I don't believe an embryo is alive, but some people do)? "
Again, I see not difference between the two. An embryo is, to me, the same as a five year old walking down the street. It is human, it is alive, it shouldn't be killed. I think that it makes the issue easier to handle if we try to make them two different issues, but the issue isn't easy. It isn't about two issues. It's about killing human beings in order to help make other humans live a little easier.
"And you're right, the embryo is BEGINNING to develop into a tiny human life. That doesn't mean that it is at that point in time. A somewhat bad analogy: think of a cacoon; it's developing into a butterfly, but it isn't just yet.
Partial birth abortion, believe it or not, does have its uses in aborting certain forms of deformed babies. "20/20" did a coverage on that once. No, I don't think that partial birth abortion (or any kind of abortion, for that matter) should be used ALL the time, however. And I think it's silly for a mother to decide to abort a baby so far into the pregnancy. So this leads to a question: why is she aborting the fetus *at all*? Sometimes she has a good reason, such as a deformity. "
On the first issue, one might just as easily say that a baby isn't a human life either. Their brains are less developed, they have different bone structures than adults, they are way smaller, and it's only through this metamorphosis over the course of about twenty years that they become adults, and are the same as adult human beings. But does this mean that they aren't human when they're toddlers?
Okay, now for the whole partial birth infanticide thing. First, let me say that a deformity, no matter what, is no reason to kill anyone. Everyone deserves a chance at life, no matter how they're born and no matter how short it may be. It's not up to us to decide that a human being isn't fit to have that chance. If I had to have my leg cut off, I really hope that someone wouldn't decide that it would be in my best interest to kill me. If they have deformed lungs, or something else, it is sad, but they don't deserve to die because of it. I think it is more in selfish reasoning that a parent would decide that this would be the best way to go.
I will tell you some things that will change your views of embryocide and partial birth infanticide (abortion makes it to technical and chipper, I call it what is really is).
1. A pregnant lady who had been trying to get pregnant for a long time without success finds out that her child has some sort of spinal problem (I think... the illness isn't the issue though). She is only around 25 weeks pregnant when she has to have and operation on her and her baby. This is the earliest operation ever done, I think, but again, not the issue. The doctor cuts her open, and begins working on the baby. While he does this, this baby (that is still allowed to be killed lawfully) reaches up and grabs the doctor's hand. This baby knew that the doctor was there and used it's brain to process the information and move it's hand to grab the doctor's hand. It happened, I saw a picture of it. This baby was a live and thinking. Are you saying that it would be okay to kill the baby at this point?
2. I was flipping through channels one day when I can across this one channel where a lady was talking. I watched for a minute, though it was hard. She was talking about her days working as a nurse during a partial birth infanticide. She described the doctor delivering most of the baby. She described the baby moving around. She described the doctor taking a pair of scissors and jamming them through the back of the baby's skull, and the baby reacting in terror and pain as the doctor killed it. She described the shock that the baby was in, and how it was scared. Then she described the doctor finishing it all off by sucking the baby's brain out and delivering the corpse.
The "mother" asked to see her dead baby. The nurse and the doctor tried to talk her out of it, but she insisted. When they showed the dead baby to her, she screamed out in terror, begging God to forgive her.
The nurse couldn't believe what she had just done. She ran into the bathroom and cried, begging God to forgive her.
That baby was alive and healthy. It had nothing wrong with it, but that is beside the point. The point is that it was legally murdered and the point is that nobody will pay for this murder because nobody cared about this baby's life.
Think about it.
Another
thing.......
Date: 08/25/2000
From: Silly_Sillerson
As it said in the first post, these embryos are going to be thrown away anyway. Obviously, there is not a darn thing you guys can do about that, their fate is already decided. So if that's the case, why not test on them? We're looking at the biggest amount of people we can help here.If they're going to be trash, by all means, test on them, help save peoples lives, it's better than having to deal with all that bio-waste when they chuck them out the door anyway.
Silly
Reply...
Date: 08/25/2000
From: Informant
"If they're going to be trash, by all means, test on them, help save peoples lives, it's better than having to deal with all that bio-waste when they chuck them out the door anyway. "
Go away. You show no respect for me, and show that no matter what happens, there will be no getting a reasonable conversation with you where you don't make comments that are meant to be disrespectful. Unless you decide tospeak reasonable and with respect, I won't even bother to reply anymore.
Okay,
Q-Ball.
Date: 08/25/2000
From: JorgeCis
I'll let the Hitler issue go. Let's continue the discussion at hand. :-)
Jorge
My
mistake, Informant.
Date: 08/25/2000
From: JorgeCis
When I said deformities, I meant that the babies were already "dead". Even if the baby was born, it wouldn't have a breath of life in it. Partial birth is used for that.The problem is that I don't think heart and brain waves prove life on their own. In fact, a baby is fully functional in about eight to twelve weeks. Yet why does birth take so long? Fine tuning, I suppose.
One thing in a slight tangent: you care a lot about the unborn baby, something I respect. However, what about the mother? Unfortunately, like it or not, money, as do a lot of other factors, plays a huge role in this. A lot of pro-life people I've heard (not anyone on this board, though) make it seem as if having a baby is the price you pay for having unsafe sex, or being careless. Is that what it's supposed to be? Punishment?
Back to the embryo testing: there must be something, then, that can be done instead. Info, I think that this is a risk worth taking, and that the unborn baby can be used to help lots of people. We can't get the consent of the embryo. How about if we get consent from the mother? With advances in medicine, we can fertilize an egg in a test tube and use that. Would that make things better?
I'm not trying to sound inhumane if I'm coming off that way. I'd like to compromise somehow. The fact of the matter is that human cells are needed. If it's better to use adult cells, then I'll support that. I support what I do because I'm in favor of the human race.
Also, Informant (and everyone else reading it), would you be so kind as to answer my "An Ethical Scenario" post?
http://www.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/545/22816
I know this is a tough issue to discuss. Believe me... it's hard for me, too. Where's that "Heated Debate" tag when you need it? :-)
Jorge
Informant.......
Date: 08/25/2000
From: Silly_Sillerson
I have no clue what you're talking about. My post was in no way disrespectful to you. I don't know where you got that. I was simply stating a fact. It seems to me that the reason you're going off on this "disrespectful" tangent, is because I have made a valid point, and you have no way to argue against it.I could be mistaken, but I'm thinking this is the case.
Silly
More
replies...
Date: 08/25/2000
From: Informant
First, Silly, I find it disrespectful that you, knowing my views, continue to use words like "trash" when referring to a human life. This is an issue that I deeply care about and I find it annoying when people find it so easy to brush the matter off without even stopping to consider that these are human beings. Innocent humans too. That is almost impossible to find.I don't think that these babies should be killed and tested like fungus or rats. These are human beings that deserve more respect.
It is equal to saying "Well, we're all gonna die sooner or later, so what's the harm in going on a shooting spree?"I wasn't dodging the issue. I was just really really disgusted.
As for Jorge...
"When I said deformities, I meant that the babies were already "dead". Even if the baby was born, it wouldn't have a breath of life in it. Partial birth is used for that. "Why not use a c-section? It's a valid option. What do you mean by "dead"? Like no chance of living, or like stillborn?
"The problem is that I don't think heart and brain waves prove life on their own. In fact, a baby is fully functional in about eight to twelve weeks. Yet why does birth take so long? Fine tuning, I suppose. "
Like I said, it takes about 20 years for a human to fully develop. This is just the early stage. It is a totally different being with it's own DNA and stuff, it isn't part of the mother's body and it is a human being.
"One thing in a slight tangent: you care a lot about the unborn baby, something I respect. However, what about the mother? Unfortunately, like it or not, money, as do a lot of other factors, plays a huge role in this. A lot of pro-life people I've heard (not anyone on this board, though) make it
seem as if having a baby is the price you pay for having unsafe sex, or being careless. Is that what it's supposed to be? Punishment?"I don't believe it's ever right to kill a baby. I don't believe that it's right in rape cases, or incest, or anything else. No matter what is is, it's not the baby's fault and they don't deserve to die. It may be torture for the mother in a rape case, and I'm sorry for that, but it still isn't the fault of the baby, and it doesn't deserve to die for it's father's sin.
Now, in "normal" cases, I don't really view any baby as punishment. I believe that people have to be responsible for their actions, but one the baby is born, they can put it up for adoption or whatever. But like I said, the baby NEVER deserves to be killed. There is no good reason, and no exceptions.
"Back to the embryo testing: there must be something, then, that can be done instead. Info, I think that this is a risk worth taking, and that the unborn baby can be used to help lots of people. We can't get the consent of the embryo. How about if we get consent from the mother? With advances in medicine, we can fertilize an egg in a test tube and use that. Would that make things better? "
I think that this is an entire area that we should have just stayed out of. Playing God and all that. However, it still isn't okay with me. An embryo is an embryo, in a human or test tube... it is a human. It isn't fair to ask someone to sacrifice themselves without giving them an option.
Here's a question:
You're ill... cancer or something. You're in a support group of about a hundred people. One day, you are offered a cure for your entire support group if you will only kill one child as he/she plays in a park. Does the need of the many outweigh the need of the few? Do you kill the kid to save the lives of your entire support group? If it's the child of the person offering you the deal, so you have their consent, does that make it okay?
"I'm not trying to sound inhumane if I'm coming off that way. I'd like to compromise somehow. The fact of the matter is that human cells are needed. If it's better to use adult cells, then I'll support that. I support what I do because I'm in favor of the human race. "
I don't deal with the Devil. If we're meant to find cures, we will find those cures without having to murder anyone. It's not a victory if you kill your own people in the battle. The object of the game is to save lives, not take them.
I will never condone this. We can find another way if we are meant to cure these things.
I
guess that's it, Info.
Date: 08/25/2000
From: JorgeCis
About the partial birth: the baby is stillborn.As for the rest of the discussion: Our main obstacle is that neither of us will compromise... at least I won't yet. But understand that I do respect other options, and I look forward to them.
I don't think that there isn't anything left to discuss right now for that reason. Don't take this as me walking away in disgust; I thoroughly enjoyed this. But right now, I'm out of ideas, and I really don't want to throw other options or other reasoning for a topic that you take very seriously. And hopefully, in the future, we can find something that we'll all agree with.
Thanks for the discussion, though. :-)
Jorge
over
and out (nim)
Date: 08/25/2000
From: Informant
Zoom
Sorry
I missed the heated debate
Date: 08/26/2000
From: sweetone
but anyway, I must agree with you Info, Abortion is totally wrong, no matter what the reason. Life begins at conception, I have no doubt about that. My sister-in-law lost a baby at 11 weeks, when she delivered the dead baby in her home, the baby was very tiny indeed, but definately a baby. I felt so terrible for her, (I was pregnant also with my 3rd) She was trying for her 2nd, it had taken her 3 years to ever get pregnant, mine was just a little surprise. I felt so guilty for a very long time.Anyway I find it totally unforgiveable to create life for the sole purpose of destroying it, no matter the reasons for doing so. I think Abortion is a very permanant solution to a temporary situation.
Oh and I thought the Democrats were conservative. Guess I was wrong.Sweetone
Friendship is a cozy shelter
from life's rainy days.
Original URL http://bboard.scifi.com/bboard/browse.cgi/1/5/545/22802
Nominated by Blinker
