Bush holds veto pen over stem cell bill
- Thread starter crabcake
- Start date
Fred Hoeck
New Member
All the cures are comming from ADULT stem cells, not EMBYONIC stem cells. This distinction is lost, much like calling the debate over ILLEAGAL immigration is changed to immigration.
People want to adopt the frozen embyros. But having these unwanted embyos from invitro-fertilization is the biggest reason to stop the practice.
People want to adopt the frozen embyros. But having these unwanted embyos from invitro-fertilization is the biggest reason to stop the practice.
BuddyLee
Football addict
Anyone know how big the embryo's are they actually use?
It's called a Blastocyst, about 50-150 cells. Doesn't look like much from the photo and description. I don't see any chopped up limbs, doesn't seem barbaric to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst
It's called a Blastocyst, about 50-150 cells. Doesn't look like much from the photo and description. I don't see any chopped up limbs, doesn't seem barbaric to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst
Last edited:
BuddyLee said:
Riiiiight. That'd work. That's why no one ever breaks them.
Seriously, the slippery slope is two-fold. One is, how on earth do you regulate this? Who's to know? How would anyone know whether or not embryos were leftover, or were 'created'? They don't have little signs on them saying "hey, the lab tech made extra - the couple wanted FIVE, but he made twenty". How would you watch that?
And the second is more likely - if the legislation to PASS embryonic stem cell legislation passes on the grounds that a blastocyst is perfectly acceptable as a lab rat - why on earth would they create a ban on creating embryos for that purpose? If there's zero moral reason against it, what would be the point?
BuddyLee
Football addict
It's not if you take preemptive measures against as much. 63% of the Senate (including Republicans) agree with passing this. About 70% of Americans agree with as much as well. Dealing with cells doesn't necessarily mean we'll be wheelin' and dealin' fingers and toes tomorrow.vraiblonde said:
MMDad
Lem Putt
The laws and regulations are in place. Congress tried to ease those restrictions. The President vetoed it. That's all that happened here.BuddyLee said:
Most people believe that a line has to be drawn at some point. The only debate is where to draw the line. Some people beleive life starts at birth, some people beleive it starts in the third trimester, some people beleive it starts at fertilization. The President beleives it starts at fertilization, so he is using that as his basis to make this kind of decision.
The "helping sick people" argument is used to draw attention away from the real issue and make it emotional. The real issue is: what are we morally willing to sacrifice in the name of science. Most people agree that good would come out of these embryos, but does it outweigh the bad?
Like it or not, that's what we get for electing a conservative President. He has been honest about this issue since day one, and he did exactly what he said he would do.
BuddyLee
Football addict
I don't think you would regulate on numbers but on development. It's almost impossible to regulate on the numbers as you clearly pointed out. However, as many have suggested here, a line has to be drawn somewhere and I believe that line will be moved more than a few times in my lifetime. I don't believe we should 'raise' children for spare parts, however, mere cells in very early stages (Blastocyst) perhaps, should be considered.SamSpade said:
But there is a moral reason still. The point being that these cells still in the blastocyst stage is a mere inkling of a water droplet, if that. Legislation should be imposed to stop it from going further than that, I don't believe that most Americans would agree with the killing of one life to save another...what's the point in that? Cells die everyday though, an extremely large abundance of these cells is what should be worried about. Save that organism that has worked into development for some time now and not these inklings we have no conscious of knowing how many we kill daily.SamSpade said:
BuddyLee said:
But if the only difference between the blastocyst and an embryo is time and the number of cells - what's the moral outrage, then? If one is a legitimate candidate for being a lab experiment, why would the other be excluded? If it's eligible on day 5, does it become ineligible on day 6? Isn't that splitting hairs? We'd be doing what they've been trying to do with abortion for years - find a "line" where it 'becomes alive' or 'human'. Does the fetus become human after day 180, but not on day 179?
I don't go with the "it's just a pile of cells" argument, because it just means somewhere down the line you decide "NOW it's a human life". You either grant it that distinction at birth or at conception, but putting it in between seems ridiculous to me. Therefore, there should be zero objection to embryo farming once blastocysts become lab rats.
[/fatbastard]
BuddyLee
Football addict
I don't know Sam, there seems to be a difference between this blastocyst cell stage and the next. At week 5 these cells start multiplying rapidly thus forming an embryo. I'd suggest this as long as it was still in the blastocyst stage, meaning anytime before week 4, the earlier the better of course. As I said before, we need to worry about those organisms who are composed of a multitude of cells, i.e. you, me, all the way to week 5 where these cells start to multiply at a rapid rate. I think that's about as close as one can get to human life development before it's too late. Anything before week 5 is just another human cell to me.:shrug:SamSpade said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Did...
...suggest or imply that stem cells are potential human beings? Or did I say they are human cells?
A little help, please.
crabcake said:
...suggest or imply that stem cells are potential human beings? Or did I say they are human cells?
A little help, please.
