Bush holds veto pen over stem cell bill

[Bruzilla]

As I said in an earlier post, I don't agree with "farming" embryonic stem cells just to use them as stem cells. But, if they're already there and ever going to be used, I don't see what the big deal is? :shrug:

The reason that embryos are not farmed right now is that there's no money in doing so. Once you inject Federal dollars into the equation that will all change.

 

[sugarmama]

The reason that embryos are not farmed right now is that there's no money in doing so. Once you inject Federal dollars into the equation that will all change.

I don't think I believe that. As many abortions that are performed here, why would we need to "farm" embryos?? Not to mention all of the cells that are sitting in petri dishes right now, never to be implanted into their mother b/c she just had quintuplets and can't afford anymore babies........

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't think I believe that. As many abortions that are performed here, why would we need to "farm" embryos?? Not to mention all of the cells that are sitting in petri dishes right now, never to be implanted into their mother b/c she just had quintuplets and can't afford anymore babies........

Abortion is traumatic for the fetus and can damage it. Normally you wouldn't care, but if you want its parts you would probably prefer it be healthy and damage-free.

Same goes for the "cells sitting in petri dishes". Not all of them are going to be viable for harvest (since we're just being gross about this).

Once we've decided that human embryos are okay to dismantle and use as we see fit, why wouldn't we actually farm them? Would there be some moral objection?

 

[BRITUSA]

Exactly. But the cells in the petri dish are NOT "alive". Once they are implanted into the mother, then they are "alive."

You mentioned in an earlier post something about "embryo farms." Now THAT is barbaric. ABsolutely ridiculously insane. But, if a woman choose to abort her baby, I don't see why those already-dead stem cells can't be used to help someone else? Or, if the cells in the petri dish are never implanted into a mother, why trash them when they can be put to good use? :shrug:

To me, it's similar to being an organ donor. It's simply STUPID to birth babies with the sole intention to have them give up their "parts" and organs. But, if they die (whether a baby or a grown person), why shouldn't they donate their organs, if they're not going to use them? Those donated organs can help SO MANY PEOPLE LIVE!!!!

I honestly don't even get half of what people are arguing about. It's SO simple to me (like most things that people try to complicate--the answer is usually the simplest one). Don't purposely "manufacture" embryos for the purpose of killing them for the stem cells... just as you wouldn't (hopefully) have a baby just to kill it and take it's organs and other parts. But, if a mother has already chosen to abort her baby, why not use (with the "mother"'s permission of course) the stem cells? :shrug:

:clap Im with you on this topic.

 

[sugarmama]

Abortion is traumatic for the fetus and can damage it. Normally you wouldn't care, but if you want its parts you would probably prefer it be healthy and damage-free.

Same goes for the "cells sitting in petri dishes". Not all of them are going to be viable for harvest (since we're just being gross about this).

Once we've decided that human embryos are okay to dismantle and use as we see fit, why wouldn't we actually farm them? Would there be some moral objection?

I gotta say--it surprises the heck out of me that you don't support stem cell research/funding/etc, etc. And what in the WORLD is so gross about this?

Something tells me that you'd be the first to support stem cell research if one if your children had MS or parkinson's, etc etc.

 

[sugarmama]

Abortion is traumatic for the fetus and can damage it. Normally you wouldn't care, but if you want its parts you would probably prefer it be healthy and damage-free.

Same goes for the "cells sitting in petri dishes". Not all of them are going to be viable for harvest (since we're just being gross about this).

Once we've decided that human embryos are okay to dismantle and use as we see fit, why wouldn't we actually farm them? Would there be some moral objection?

BTW, are you an organ donor?

 

[SamSpade]

Once we've decided that human embryos are okay to dismantle and use as we see fit, why wouldn't we actually farm them? Would there be some moral objection?

Of course not, because by the time we reach that point, the moral argument has been skipped over. Critics can safely say "we've been over this already".

It's part of *SOME* of my objections to mercy killings and assisted suicide. Generally, if a person has left documentation of what they would want in given situations, it's acceptable. But killing off the elderly because it's merciful is not more than a stone's throw from killing them off because it's convenient.

Same applies here - how far away can it be from growing embryos for research to simply harvesting embryos for research? As Bruzilla also pointed out, if it's trash today but profit tomorrow, how far will it be before people MAKE embryos so they can be harvested?

 

[vraiblonde]

Something tells me that you'd be the first to support stem cell research if one if your children had MS or parkinson's, etc etc.

What makes people say crap like this about someone they don't even know?

If you DID know me, you'd know that I'm not a person who throws my values and principles away when it becomes convenient for me to do so. YOU may do that, but I do not.

 

[vraiblonde]

BTW, are you an organ donor?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Pete]

BTW, are you an organ donor?

APS is

 

[vraiblonde]

Of course not, because by the time we reach that point, the moral argument has been skipped over.

Once you say it's okay to use embryos that "would have been destroyed anyway" it's not that far a stretch to actually grow human embryos specifically for the purpose of experimentation and research.

And what's the difference between a week old fetus and a 2 month old fetus? Then a 6 month old fetus? How about a full gestation pre-born infant?

That's how the case was made for partial-birth abortion.

 

[Toxick]

Something tells me that you'd be the first to support stem cell research if one if your children had MS or parkinson's, etc etc.

Bad form.

BTW, are you an organ donor?

Voluntarily donating your organs to save lives not even close to the same thing as growing oblivious non-volunteers to harvest their parts, which, in effect is a form of slavery so grotesque that it's incomprehensible to the mind.

The difference between the two concepts is colossal.

 

[sugarmama]

What makes people say crap like this about someone they don't even know?

If you DID know me, you'd know that I'm not a person who throws my values and principles away when it becomes convenient for me to do so. YOU may do that, but I do not.

So, you'd rather your child die from a disease that he/she could be cured of if they simply received stem cell therapy?

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

Well, yeah...of course the cells themselves are alive. Wouldn't be of any use for the research if they were dead. Sorry if the wording seemed contradictory with the rest of my posts.

...they are alive and they are human. There simply is no way around that. You can't mis-identify a human stem cell as being a tree or a snail darter or a bug. It is human.

 

[SamSpade]

What makes people say crap like this about someone they don't even know?

If you DID know me, you'd know that I'm not a person who throws my values and principles away when it becomes convenient for me to do so. YOU may do that, but I do not.

I'm not quite that resolute - but - changing your mind about stem cell research because you think it will save a loved one, to me, is like begging for the state to have a lottery so you can win and be rich. It's a remote possibility and blaming state officials for making you poor would be about the same attitude.

 

[sugarmama]

Bad form.




Voluntarily donating your organs to save lives not even close to the same thing as growing oblivious non-volunteers to harvest their parts, which, in effect is a form of slavery so grotesque that it's incomprehensible to the mind.

The difference between the two concepts is collosal.

As I said in a previous post, I don't agree with "growing oblivious non-volunteers to harvest their parts." I agree with using what we have (as in, already aborted fetuses, unused cells in petri dishes, etc.).

 

[Larry Gude]

I have a question...

So, you'd rather your child die from a disease that he/she could be cured of if they simply received stem cell therapy?

What if stem cell research leads to immortality?

 

[sugarmama]

...they are alive and they are human. There simply is no way around that. You can't mis-identify a human stem cell as being a tree or a snail darter or a bug. It is human.

It is a human CELL, NOT a human.

 

[citysherry]

I agree with Bush but for a different reason. Right now, as has been pointed out, there are hundreds if not thousands of embryos that are currently destroyed if they are not implanted. While it may make perfect sense to many that it would be better to harvest stem cells and destroy these embryos rather than just destroy them outright, what I think is missing from the argument is what will happen to those embryos once a vast flood of Federal research dollars is poured into the mix.

The embryos are destroyed right now because they have no use or value, and cost money to store. They have no use of value because there is only private research going on, and many limits on what stem cell lines can be used. But what happens when those restrictions are lifted? What'll happen is those embryos will no longer be useless or valueless... instead they will be a commodity. Research firms will now be able to go to fertility clinics with specific requests for embryos with specific genetic qualities, and fertility clinics will begin trying to fill those requests as a great deal of profit will be found here. And what happens when the normal flow of invitro fertilization "surplus" embryos isn't meeting the demands? How long will it be before clinics start actively seeking out couples to create embryos that meet specific genetic requirements? How long will it be before fertility clinics start telling their patients that they need to submit 10 embryos instead of five, and offer a discount on the cost of their services if couples will provide extra embryos?

There's just no surer way to screw this whole process up than by pouring in millions and millions of Federal dollars into it. Once we've convinced ourselves that a embryo really isn't a life, then there'll be no limits on what some people will do with them, or to get them, to make money.

Name one program that has/had Federal Research grant money that didn't have checks and balances in place?

 

[sugarmama]

What does that have to do with anything?

Refer to post #95