What exactly is 'immoral' about embryonic stem cell research?

Anyone?

How many decades were embryos being thrown away in fertility clinics until some right wing Republican decided it would be a good politcal selling point for the lunatic base?

I'm sure there's an answer to it somewhere. This probably didn't ring any alarm bells until some strategist saw it as a means to widen the culture war.

:woohoo:

immoral because it results in the destruction of those embryos. If you believe that life begins at conception than the creation and destruction of embryos (little itty bitty humans in this scenario) is tantamount to murder. Murder is immoral therefor embryonic stem cell research is immoral becaue it leads to the murder of those embryos. Others (and they are probably a very small minority of people) are against embryonic stem cell research because they are afraid of a 'slippery slope' to eventual cloning (although that is probably more of a philisophical than moral argument).

So what's the big deal?

Hypothetically speaking, if life begins at conception and sin begins at conception, you think it's ok to kill the embryo (or in this scenario, the little itty bitty human) because it is a sinner?

The church does, however. Their argument, thus, can't be that the embryo is innocent, because in their eyes, no human is innocent. So why is the embryo more entitled to life than, say, a heretic from the inquisition, or a person convicted of a capital crime?

The heretic is one thing, but the person convicted of a capital crime is another.

As to the original question, it is a matter of where you determine personhood. Most here define it as being at birth, people who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research define it as beginning at conception. Our society can define full personhood away from an individual for committing a capital crime, and we have denied personhood for much less reason than that.

but that still doesn't make your argument any less vapid. Let's postulate that an embroyo is a life and that an embryo is guilty of sin, therefor it is a human being and a sinner. You want to know why the church believes it is more entitled to life than a heretic from the inquisition or a person convicted of capital crime? And the church would argue that an embryo is not given a priveledge that is not given to all other humans because it doesn't support capital punishment and it doesn't support the burning of heretics (although, obviously it once did). There argument is that the embryo is life and as such should not be subjected to murder and they also argue the same for those convicted of capital crimes.

I'm just curious.

church has ever preached that unbaptised babies go to hell and they certainly have not preached that in the 20th century. When I was going to school the church taught that unbaptised babies go to limbo and I believe the new pope has changed the official position to unbaptised babies 'perhaps' can go to heaven, but I'm not sure on that one.

so how can their authority on anything be taken seriously?

But when your arguing one side of the eguation versus another it's helpful to be coherent and educated. I postulatized the beliefs of a group of people (we are talking about 10's of millions of people), which I don't agree with, but whose reasoning is fairly sensical. You have come back with counter arguments which don't address any of their arguments. Arguing that it's ok to destroy embryos because, according to catholics, they are sinners is nonsensical. And now arguing that the argument is wrong because the Catholic church is inconsistent does not undress the underlying premise.

"Actually, the statistics are more grim than Pence admits. Only about 50% of all zygotes successfully implant in the uterine wall and become embryos. And only about 65% of all embryos lead to live births; the rest (about 35%) are lost to natural miscarriage. Therefore, slightly less than one third of all zygotes lead to live births. These statistics come from Gregg Easterbrook in "Abortion and Brain Waves" (2000) and from Morowitz and Trefil, The Facts of Life. Science and the Abortion Controversy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Easterbrook: only about 32.5% (65% of 50%) of all fertilized ovum are carried to term. Morowitz and Trefil: "slightly fewer than a third of all conceptions (72 percent of 45 percent) lead to a fetus that has a chance of developing." Morowitz and Trefil point out that not all fertilizations result in successful cell division -- some fertilized eggs don't even become blastocysts."

but if I use my car to deliberately run someone down, my right to drive after that will be eliminated. There's a difference between causing something to occur, and "shit happens".

There is a difference that is discernable by believers in an invisible sky-father and those who don't see the universe in those terms.

What evidence do you have to proffer to back up your assertion?

them, is hardly representitive of the population. Thre are millions of people who are anti war and anti-abortion. Just like there are millions of people who are pro-choice and pro-war. Of course pro-war is a pretty broad stroke to paint. What consitutes pro-war? If one supported the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq, does that make one pro-war. If one supported US involvement in World War II and Korea, but was against all subsequent US interventions, does that make them pro-war?

every repuke I have ever known and the party as a whole is pro-war (usually as long as they don't have to serve), pro-death penalty and so called "pro-life" - hypocritical bastards all

You proffered a position that I believe is incorrect. I asked you to provide justification for your position and you are unable to do that. The discussion is about people who are against embryonic stem cell research because they think it is murder. You can spit and spout all you want about the evil republicans and their hypocritical nature, but that doesn't address the millions of pro-life, anti-death penalty, anti embryonic stem cell research americans who object to these things on moral grounds and are not republicans. But keep up with your ad hominem and straw man attacks to win arguments; the strategy suits you well.

take your tripe to the freak republic where it will be welcome

the clueless one.

I am not arguing that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, because I don't believe it is morally wrong. I am trying to discuss why other people believe it is wrong and then I figured we could discuss how to argue against that position. Obviously you are not capable of such deep intelectual thought and must revert to name calling whenever your brain hits a comprehension speed bump.

Are they against ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) in total?? Because nobody threw a fit about the fact that for decades these embryos have simply been washed down the drain. It wasn't until someone thought maybe some good use could come from those embryos that the problem ensued.

I'm sure that many, many Republicans and anti-choicers have used ART so there seems to be a disconnect here. Either that or a big stinking load of hypocrisy.

Their argument is about as logical as debating walking under a ladder or breaking mirrors.

in not using them

(babble, babble, babble) human (babble, babble, babble) ...

'If the government funds this, then they are technically aborting babies.'

'If we stop them on this, it's a step toward outlawing abortions.'

That is how they divorce themselves from how much it could help to cure and treat people. It's all about the end justifying the means for them, regardless of what the consequences are for those waiting for a treatment or cure before they die.

1 - Why don't they outlaw in-vitro?

2 - Why don't they step up their adoption of these embryos? What a fake show yesterday when the Repukes trotted out the snowflakes and when that stupid Repuke congress critter held up that photo on Hardball. According to the Dem Congresswoman Tweety had on there have been about 500 snowflake babies. There are 400,000 - 500,000 embryos frozen in clinics. Do the math. That's .1% of these embryos that are adopted and implanted. The rest end up or will end up as medical waste.

So throwing them in the trash or burning them as medical waste is preferable to actually doing research and perhaps saving or bettering the lives of humans who are already born.

He said he had a problem with IVF. He didn't have a problem with them doing stem cell research on embryos that were going to be discarded.

David

and all those other feel-good diseases that bring in all those beautiful billions of dollars every day.

That's what's immoral.

Why is it ok to use science to help make babies for those who God did not bless with natural babies in the first place....if you believe in Gods will that is.

Isn't that going against God, by doing that(In-Vitro)? It seems that you can pick and choose what God wants and doesn't want...Bless or not Bless...
I am sorry but what a Crock!!!

If that is what you are talking about--the procedure routinely fertilizes far more eggs and thus produces more embryos than are needed or than are intended to carry to term. I assume many of these result in a "selective reduction" or we would likely be having a lot more octomoms out there.

Octomom's recent litter are a result of this. She had six eggs left over from the procedure that got her the previous six babies. She didn't want to discard the leftovers (I guess it's against traditional Muslim belief as much as Christian) so she had the six implanted, two divided and she had eight babies.

So I would imagine other hard core believers would only get involved in assisted fertility as long as it followed whatever strict guidelines their faith compelled them to assert.

what I don't understand is the way they decide what is Gods will and what isn't....It wasn't in Gods will for some women to have babies(as they try and try but just can't conceive using natural methods, like sex)...but it is in Gods will to go to a "doctor" and have scientifically made babies inserted into their bodies..hoping one or more will develop.

There is a disconnect there going on.....unless they believe that technology is good when it benefits them and rides the line(on their side of thinking) between natural and un-natural...but if it crosses that line in their own eyes then its not Gods will....I mean in the end...how many babies had to die for that particular science(in-vitro) to have come about...I guess those deaths were ok in their eyes...

I don't think they are shunning technology in an Amish-like throwback to pre-industrialization. It's not the science or the technology that they have a problem with, it is what they see as the destruction of a life.

Communicating, changing minds, or even reaching some kind of consensus does require that we understand what the other side is talking about.

But this goes back to this emotion of giving away your biological children. Octomom wouldn't speak to that when her mother confronted her over her attitude of "use them or destroy them."

Personally, I can see why no one wants to give them away. But anyone that does IVF and considers themselves "prolife from conception" has to deal with this question of what to do with the extra embryos (or ignore it).

We waste so many of our natural resources and create havoc in the pursuit of gain; forests, oceans, animals, mountains, and now we've gone and made the building blocks of our own race - once made only by human interaction - into a commodity with as much value as a sheet of toilet paper *and* a house, at the same time.

Easily produced, easily discardable.

We rationalize it by speaking of all the lives it could save.

The reality is that the people who are most firmly behind the effort are thinking of all the money they could make.

The people who are against this have shit for brains.

I doubt you're so concerned about the "building blocks of the human race" every time you jerk off.

I don't see the point in elevating human processes to something sacred.

Only a matter of time...

They have not a leg to stand on. Science trumps religion every time.

going to be tossed out anyway, why not help mankind with them? Looks like that would be more ethical than throwing them in the trash or whatever they do with them.

I can see why they would feel that way.

Because, if one's identity commences the moment a unique DNA develops in a fertilized embryo, you are in a sense disrupting that identity and ending whatever potential development and life that embryo contained if you harvest stem cells from it. If indeed "life" begins at conception by the formation of a unique DNA struction, then there certainly is an ethical quandry that comes out of stem cell research.

And it is because of these ethical complexities that I will admit I am not as enthusastic or openly vocal about my support for this research as some people are. I am supportive, mind you, but I'll be honest and admit it's something of a reluctant support. I would much prefer to see more research done on adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells.

However, the realities are as such: these embryos, created as a surplus in the fertility process, would almost certainly be designated for destruction anyways. As such, it becomes something of a "making lemonade after being thrown lemons" type of situation. And while I eschew the improper "pro-life" label for opponents of abortion in general (and I also eschew the inane "pro-choice" label for supporters of abortion rights), I can say this: if the best that comes out of the situation is that the cells gathered from these embryos help in assisting to develop cures which prolong and improve life, then it is, pardon the expression, a "pro-life" process. Thus, it should be viewed as a worthwhile venture.

Is the stem cell research process completely free of all ethical and moral implications? I would say no. Is it in the best interests of the people at this time, if these embryos would be discarded anyways? To that, I would say yes.

Now, on the other hand, so-called "therapeutic cloning", i.e. the creation of new embryos for the sole purposes of research? That I would say is most definetly unethical and immoral.

and another soul is attached to any cell that separates and becomes an identical twin (or triplet, etc.). And once a soul is attached to a cell, or collection of cells, it's wrong to stop the biochemical processes that enable those cells to continue to function.

For anyone who believes in transubstantiation, this is not actually that hard to swallow.

Other than that, no biggie.

They feel that because life begins at conception, the fertilized eggs have rights and using them as medical R&D violates those rights.

However, because of in vitro fertilization, which requires a woman to have several eggs fertilized with only one implanted and the rest put in liquid nitrogen, there are hundreds of thousands of fertilized eggs sitting in frozen vats that are literally going to be thrown in the trash. Basically people who support stem cell research are saying 'instead of throwing 400,000 fertilized eggs in the trash each year, lets take 400 and study them and throw the other 399,600 in the trash'.

I have never heard a good rebuttal to that point. I think alot of opposition comes from misinformation. I believe alot of opponents think that aborted fetuses are where stem cells come from and are basing their responses to that. About 70% of the country is scientifically illiterate, so I wouldn't be surprised.