Stem Cell Research and Science

Rehpo-+ · 09-23-2006, 10:38 PM

I'm going to make a guess and say the majority of people on this board are in favor of Stem Cell Research, just by reading peoples' posts.

Myself, I am a firm supporter of Stem Cell Research. The basis of my support of stem cell research is I believe that we have an obligation as human beings to further the study of Science and medicine, using the tools of technology. Especially if the results mean finding a cure for cancers, disease, etc.

The major argument against stem cell research is that it is "killing a perspective life". Which brings another question to the table. Recently a well known Ethicist stated that it would be moral to kill a handicapped child a month after birth if it meant a better life for a future child. I have to say I agree with him on this.

Any thoughts on these subjects?

**George** · 09-23-2006, 11:00 PM

Whoa... you had me till you started talking about killing cripple infants..

I mean on the stem cell argument I think anti-abortion folks will just continue to try and take away a woman's right no matter how silly the argument gets.

Not to be crude but if you follow their line of argument there really is no sensible limit to it. You'd also have to say a man masturbating is in effect killing a potential life. But anti-stem cell research advocates have taken it even further than that down to the cellular level. Amazing.

I mean I agree "technically" a life starts at conception but I don't believe abortions kill babies because at 6 weks it's not a baby, it's still an ill formed mass of cells and very little tissue.

I'm curious to see a better explanation for your belief that it's ok to kill a month old baby under any circumstances.

Rehpo-+ · 09-24-2006, 10:17 AM

Let me first state, I do believe the disabled or mentally retarded have as much of a chance to living a fullfilled life as the abled.

But lets take a hypothetical situation, a doctor determines a child has a severe handicap, illness, or mental retardation. Where it was determined that the child would live their whole life in a wheel chair or would need 24/7 care. And it's not certain even with the care that the child would live till 5. The parents are just told this, and they have another baby coming in 4 months. Given the situation of their new born, it's going to be very pricey for the care, and very time consuming. They have validation that the one due in 4 months is a healthy girl, no foreseen problems. The family is a working class family, already they foresaw issues sending two children to college, but with the circumstances it would be difficult enough to send one child to college, and there is still the possibility of more abled body, healthy children.

Obviously with the laws of today, euthanasia of a new born in these circumstances is unlawful and "immoral". But I don't see it as being immoral if it means the chance for a fuller life for the other children and their newborn will not live a life like his/her brothers or sisters or may not live till 5.

I drew a pretty drastic picture, but it's not unrealistic. To better your life and the life of your children, it is tough decision just like abortion, but the answer would be pretty obvious if the option was there. But I do not see the option being available to Americans' any time soon.

**George** · 09-24-2006, 10:27 AM

At 1 month old a baby, handicapped or not:

- Has been born
- Lived and experienced things
- Formed a thought or 2
- Has a birth certificate and a social security number.

Calling it "euthinasia" is clever. But, doubt about it, killing a 1 month old baby by any means is murder.

Especially if your only reason for killing it is to better the lives of others.

scpitcher · 09-24-2006, 07:17 PM

Rehpo-+,

This could be very difficult if the equation is one life vs. another life. However, you are talking about killing a 1 month old human (life) so that an unborn sibling (potential life) would be better off (better fed, nicer clothes, education, etc...). That is a slipperly slope that I hate to start down.

In the case of stem cell research, there are hundreds or thousands of "potential lives" which are destroyed daily. Not using this material to further knowledge, cure disease or save lives is wrong, in my opinion.

Mike

**George** · 09-24-2006, 07:23 PM

Slippery slope indeed...

Question from someone not as up on his biomedics as he should be.

A stem cell doesn't require the genes from 2 parents correct? Didn't they recently discover a way to engineer stem cells without removing them from a fertilized human embyo?

Gringo · 09-25-2006, 08:42 PM

If it is ok to KILL a one month old baby because it is not going to live a life of a value that WE think it should,

Is it oK to KILL a person that is in a coma and will not come out?

Is it ok to KILL a person that has alzheimers and will never again recognize his loved ones. After all, we could use his material for some little baby just coming in.

I can't believe you really believe this.

How dangerous this line of thinking is.

Suppose YOUR loved one has a cerebrial hemorage and will NEVER again (we think) wake up. Should WE DECIDE that the value of that life has gone?

The emphasis is on the word KILL.

I encourage you to rethink your position.

IF you have the right to decide when the value of a little baby's life has ended, what stops someone else from deciding when the value of YOUR life has ended.

We MUST have respect for ALL human life or it is INDEED a slippery slope.

Once again, I encourage you to rethink your position.

Gringo

Rehpo-+ · 09-26-2006, 08:04 AM

Gringo,
In those cases, that person has the right to die, if that was their coice, or if a close loved, husband/wife, knows that's what the person wanted or believes that will be the best choice rather than having the person suffer in a state of vegetation or extreme pain.

If a close relative had cerebial hemhoraging, and the chance of recovery was slim, or recovery would mean a state of vegetation. Yes, I would consider option for euthanasia, for the sake of that person.

You are 100% correct, saying that Human Life should be respected, and there is a slippery slope. But many times family and friends hold on, not for the one who is suffering, but for their own reasons and because they do not want to let go.

Gringo · 09-27-2006, 05:19 AM

I've problably spelled that word wrong.

Anyway, believe it or not, I am FOR mercy killing IF and I repeat IF the person WANTS to die and is coherent enough to make that decision. For instance, if a person has terminal cancer and there is NO hope for recovery and that person is suffering miserably, then I think it is THAT PERSON's choice to do with their life as they please.

But I don't think ANYONE else should have the right to decide when my quality of life is over.

And on that note, even though you and I disagree, we'll be friends. OK?

Rehpo-+ · 09-27-2006, 11:30 PM

Gringo,
One of my favorite statements, is agree to disagree, I just like to discuss and get other perspectives. Friends.