Why Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Wrong and Obsolete

Did you actually read the whole article?  

The last line reads, "People want to rush and say we don't need embryonic stem cells anymore, and over time that might be true, but right now that's premature."

Somehow the concluding fact doesn't seem to match up with your article....

Why put so much life into something that could eventually be ineffecient, if you take that worldview?

Basically why continue wasting life until we can ascertain whether or not the adult skin cells are as good as the embryonic cells?

I am in total agreement. 

You and I and every one who reads this started out their life as an embryo. It was the beginning stage of our life...and it is just as worhty of dignity as you or I or the person reading this.

Embryonic stem cell research is immoral and unethical. One can never do evil, even if good might come from it.

That fact is unimportant to those who go by principle that the ends justify the means...

 

 

 

Why not have a fair article?  For example, instinctively, when someone reads, taking baby parts, they think hmm I see an arm or a leg.  Do you really believe it is an arm and a leg?  If isn't then what is involved in the process, in actuality, not some regurgitated pamphlet dialogue.  When you say "It involves taking an unborn life and putting it to help an old, near failing life.".  Does it really, or does it potentially help a young or old or mid life person or ANYONE?  Ironically, and irrevocably, I agree with you.  If stem cells need not be harvested from an embryo but gathered, from other sources, then it would not possibly destroy any ethical boundaries we may not want to get past.  With that said, have a little less bias.  Is it that hard?

Go see BodyWorlds.

My goal in blogging is not to present facts, but opinions. And if my opinions are facts, then they are. I am not forcing you to accept them.

So it is hard then.  Because your aren't delineating facts.  I don't need to see any documentary's.  I'm in med school and I undertand what is involved in abortions.  That is why I feel you are pushing your agenda and dressing it up as fact.  I actually think we should not destroy embryos for the ethical consequences, but when I explain to people my viewpoint, I don't say baby parts and only old people benefit.  It would be doing them a disservice.  You could not force me to accept your view point, nor could I force you to speak the truth fairly.  and the world turns and turns.

If I wanted to force people to see only my viewpoint, I would be able to click a button and delete any comments on any of my articles. I enjoy debate, and I feel that the truth can only be brought by a neutral side or multiple opposing sides. I pitch my side, others can pitch theirs.

Think of how many brilliant scientists and atheletes and politicians abortioins, stem cell research, and more have killed. I cannot accept even giving a slight advantage to any of these things.

The truth is:

All of the advances proposed from embryonic stem cell research are either hypothetical at this point or can be obtained from other stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research does hold some promise, but since the promise is at least equalled by other means, it seems to me rather pointless.

You're doing it again.  You're regurgitating talking points.  Recycled rhetoric.  Umm umm think of how many presidents have been killed.  Look no one knows what has happened.  What we do know is that it is ethically a heavy situation.  There is no sense it marginalizing the ethical rammifications by literally dummying it down to nothing more than dogmatic devised denunciations that literally do not help the situation.  It's not black and white.  Yes it is tough to destroy the potentiality of life, but it doesn't end there, because we might be able to cure previously incurable ailments.  Should we just attack it, no, we should approach it with responsibility and talk about it explicitly and not tag it with barbaric images.  It's not tearing baby arms from the torso OK.  It's cultivating cells.  That's what it  is.  We play God when we play with life like that.  It's a tough sell.  But again, foggying up the situation with RHETORIC is not dignifying anything, and furthermore actually hurts all causes.  IN a perfect world...

Those ultra-simple truths are still truths.

PSYCHX posts:  

What exactly is unfair about the article? Or biased?

From what I can tell, Erathoniel told the truth about embryonic stem cell research and abortion...

We have all seen the ultrasound pictures of a fetus developing in the womb. The fetus is an unborn child. Everyone, even a little child knows that. Ask a child what is inside the protruding belly of a pregnant woman and he'll say it's a baby. It's much more than  "just a blob of tissue"  as the pro-abortion advocates say.

Then you know that what takes place while the child is still inside the womb during the barbaric abortion procedure is a bloody mess....the baby is killed by saline scalding, surgically dismembered, pulled out and vaccummed up like surgical debris. During a late term abortion called partial birth abortion, the baby is pulled out with just his head inches in the womb and the abortionist inserts his insturment into the baby's skull.

If it's clear that deliberately killing a baby ouside the womb is an abomination, then it stands to reason and common sense, it is also an abomination to kill a baby a few days, or weeks or months earlier in its stage of life, including its embroynic stage.

You say the ethical part is "heavy",  but seem very uncomfortable with the moral issue of what it means to take a life.

Life is life in all it's stages...you started out as an embryonic stem cell and your mom let you come to term...why would you deny that to the next fellow human being?

 

 

 

I thought partial birth abortion was illegal. It is where I live.

Yes, some states have banned this horrific procedure....but...if you check into it, I'm quite certain you'll find that Planned Parenthood, NOW, Naral and others sued immediately afterward and while that is being taken up in court, the taking of innocent life continues in abortuaries. Abortion on demand, for anyone, at anytime through the day of delivery, for any reason.

Yeah, one thing is the any reason policy. I have a problem with any form of abortion, but if it actively promotes a do anything you want culture, it is even worse. It's bad in any case, but if it allows casual fornification with no penalties, it is beyond bad.

Abortion is evil. Any country that legitimizes killing its own progeny is doomed.

None. Because they aren't any of those things. They are dead matter, disposed of properly.

I'm not saying that I agree with abortion (which, as a general rule, I don't), I'm just saying that you're really good at spewing talking points without any real substance. I mean, I guess that works around here (look at all the conservatives up in here, they do that shit all the time, all fluff and no substance) but you still look like a tool, just like psychx said.

Which countries are you talking about? None except maybe China could be said to have survived very long, and even China had an enormous number of different dynasties. It also allowed abortion through herbal methods.

Can you name a country in particular which held the unborn sacred and survived all that long? None really jump out to me, but I did Asian rather than European history, so maybe you have an example.

Any country that officially recognizes abortion on demand. The USA, ever since 1973 when a majority decision of Supreme Court Justices recognized abortion on demand as a "woman's reproductive right to privacy". Problem is we don't reproduce something by killing it.

Roe v. Wade is an evil law and must be overturned or our nation is doomed.

Those countries in Europe which are still holding out from officially legitimizing abortion on demand are being hit hard by the European Union to buckle under.

I seem to recall that one of the people who brought about Roe v. Wade found it an incorrect interpretation of their intentions. The client, if I'm correct.

Yes, Norma McCorvey is Jane Roe of that fateful day of January, 1973. She suffered tremendous trauma as a result of her participation in legalized abortion at any time during pregnancy (infanticide). Since then she deeply regretted her part and has experienced a complete conversion and found her way into the Church.

Another one who repented and converted was Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson of Vanderbuilt Univ. He started NARAL in 1968 and was the owner of the largest abortion clinic in thie country (at least at that time). Once he realized that abortion was the taking of a human life and realized the suffering it caused women, he shut his clinic down...for good.

Speaking of China, last Feburary, I read probably one of the most disturbing news report ever. It's details from Dr. Mark Miravalles book, The Seven Sorrows of China and it give the accounts of brutality of the one-child policy and its effects upon the Chinese people.

He laments that the greatest sorrow of all is that the majority of CHinese people have no problem with with having an abortion, it's like going to the dentist.

Anyway, he writes that in one province, 5 restaurants began serving "fetal soup" at the price of 300 Yuan, ($40.00) a bowl!

This is an emotional issues, plain and simple. It will never ever be solved, why, because you're going to have one of the sides crying foul if the other is "winning." It all comes down to personal ethics/morals. Personal is the operative word. Same thing with the other emotional issues. 

 

 

Personally, life happens. You get pregnant, love the child.

Lula: I was unclear. Which countries have lasted forever as a result of their anti-abortion stance? I can't think of a single country which rose or fell where its stance on abortion was even remotely influential.

Perhaps the best counter-example is Rome. It was all peachy up until it got God and abandoned abortion. Then it collapsed rather messily. Not that I think there's a causation there. From what I've seen and read abortion is at best an extremely minor factor in the life of states.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?



Yes, and the methods can be particularly brutal. It's not a socially uplifting policy, but they had the choice of continuing their rampant overpopulation and being forced to seize additional land or cutting back on growth. I think the world should be grateful they went for the latter even if it does make baby Jesus cry.

Yes, but is there not something immoral about the killing of innocents, even if for the good of the whole? Why not let the guilty whole fall for the sake of the innocents?