Stem Cell Research = Murder?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by kniz *
**
From what I’ve read there isn’t any doubt that it can save lives. It will not save lives immediately, because more research needs to be done. **

Those two statements are contradictory. More research DOES need to be done – and therefore, we don’t know for sure that lives will be saved. The proof is in the pudding. Right now, all we have are the assurances and confidence of some medical researchers who have yet to find these cures.

**

Moreover, most opponents (my emphasis, kniz) of stem cell research – including those within the medical community – are convinced that the embryos are actual human beings, rather than “possible human beings” (to use your own phrase). If so, then it is hardly reasonable to sacrifice actual human beings because it might lead to medical cures someday.

There are opponents to everything and so if we relied on and followed their line of reasoning, we would never do anything new. **

Get real. I’m not saying that we should back down simply because there’s opposition. I’m merely pointing out that the humanity of the unborn IS the central issue – and thus, your persistent appeal to positive consequences is irrelevant.

Most critics of stem cell research believe that the embryo/fetus/blastocyst/conceptus (as the case may be) is fully human. If they’re correct, then it would be immoral to sacrifice the embryo/fetus/blastocyst/conceptus – and your promises of medical cures become irrelevant.

** And you used the term most opponents so not all of them believe that stem cells are actual humans, right?
**

First of all, it’s not the stem cells themselves which are arguably human – it’s the embryo from which the stem cells would be harvested.

Second, many people react on a gut emotional level first and foremost. I am merely allowing for the possibility that some people would feel vaguely uncomfortable without fully understanding why.

And third, there are doubtlessly people who are uncertain if the embryo is fully human or not, and who oppose such research as a result. We already know that some people oppose abortion because they’re not sure that the unborn is not fully human. It is reasonable to believe that most of these people would oppose embryonic stem cell research as well.

**Why are you getting your undies in a wad about stem cell research and not in vitro?
**

Who says that I wouldn’t? Are you some sort of mind reader?

We haven’t been discussing in vitro fertilization, and so I haven’t raised that specific issue. If you want to raise it, fine – but that belongs in a separate thread.

**In the case at hand the intent is not to create a human being. **

That may not be the intent, but intent does not equal actuality.

The cell is created in a dish and none will be used to impregnate a woman. None are rejected simply because of fate. The man has plenty of spare sperm and the woman is not using all of her eggs. Both will produce more, sounds pretty logical to me.

OF COURSE both of them can produce more. That’s not the issue. Their ability to produce more spperm and eggs has absolutely ZERO bearing on whether they have already produced a new life.

**
And also back to my questions. What are you going to do when your SO gets Alzheimers? **

I would want medical science to find a cure, but not at all costs. Not at the cost of another person’s life.

And so once again, we see that the humanity of the embryo is the real issue. You can keep asserting that harvesting stem cells can help save lives – but if it involves the murder of an innocent, then such pleas are both inhuman and inhumane.

[kniz]

[Quote]
originally posted by JThunder
More research DOES need to be done – and therefore, we don’t know for sure that lives will be saved.

[Quote]

Many scientists knew what would happen if you split the atom. It took several years and many scientists in Operation Manhattan to develop the bomb, but they knew what they were working toward. This is the same, they know what will be the outcome, it just will take some more work. Unlike the example this will help mankind, not threaten him.

originally posted by JThunder
I’m merely pointing out that the humanity of the unborn IS the central issue – and thus, your persistent appeal to positive consequences is irrelevant.

What you are saying is that it is the central issue of “most of the opponents”. I’m saying it is not the central point of any of the proponents and evidently some of the opponents. It is not the central issue to me.

[Quote]
originally posted by JThunder
First of all, it’s not the stem cells themselves which are arguably human – it’s the embryo from which the stem cells would be harvested.

Now I know you need to do some research. Stem cells are the first cells that form after conception. They are all alike, none are heart cells, none are brain cells, none are toe cells. One stem cell divides into two and two into four and four into eight and so on until they start specializing and then they are no longer stem cells and the embryo starts to form into a human. That is what makes stem cells so valuable, they have the ability to create brain cells, spine cells, etc. Not only that but they contain the information for making these things. If I’m wrong please someone correct me

originally posted by JThunder
Second, many people react on a gut emotional level first and foremost. I am merely allowing for the possibility that some people would feel vaguely uncomfortable without fully understanding why.

You’ve never stated how you stand. Are you one of these people? Or are you just a concerned citizen defending their rights?

originally posted by JThunder
We haven’t been discussing in vitro fertilization, and so I haven’t raised that specific issue. If you want to raise it, fine – but that belongs in a separate thread.

I swear there was a post by you that said that in vitro was a mushier question because the cells would be thrown away. I can’t find it and so I apologize, I must have been having delusions.

originally posted by JThunder
And so once again, we see that the humanity of the embryo is the real issue.

That’s what it boils down to you and you still won’t declare what side you are on. And how about my last question about how you are going to keep it from being developed in France, Sweden or Japan?

Oh this is from Merrill-Webster:
Main Entry: in·hu·mane
Pronunciation: “in-(”)hyü-'mAn, -(")yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French inhumain & Latin inhumanus
Date: 1599
: not humane : INHUMAN 1

• in·hu·mane·ly adverb

In other words: its the same word.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by kniz *
**
Now I know you need to do some research. Stem
cells are the first cells that form after conception.*

Have you forgotten that we are talking specifically about embryonic stem cells?

You;'re the one that needs to do research. Stem cells comprise the embryo. In other words, the embryo consists of stem cells. The stem cells are not distinct individuals themselves, and nobody claims that they are (except for the initial zygote, which has no bearing on our discussion of embryonic stem cell harvesting).

originally posted by JThunder
And so once again, we see that the humanity of the embryo is the real issue.

That’s what it boils down to you and you still won’t declare what side you are on.
**
[/QUOTE]

Because my personal views are irrelevant to the question that you posed – namely, why haven’t people been focusing on the good that can come out of embryonic stem cell research? Remember, that’s the specific question that you raised, and it’s the specific question to which I was replying.

I am not about to muddy the waters by belaboring irrelevant details, and I wish that you would do the same.

**
Oh this is from Merrill-Webster:
Main Entry: in·hu·mane
Pronunciation: “in-(”)hyü-'mAn, -(")yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French inhumain & Latin
inhumanus
Date: 1599
: not humane : INHUMAN 1
- in·hu·mane·ly adverb

                        In other words: its the same word.

**

Ooh, now you’re being blatantly petty. I would argue that “inhuman” and “inhumane” have different connocations and emphasez, as evidenced by the different definitions provided by http://www.dictionary.com. In other words, their definitions may overlap, but they are not identical.

If you wish to belabor this point, that’s fine by me. After all, it’s neither essential nor relevant to the topic at hand.