Embryonic Stem Cell Research (with embryos)

There is actually a new method of getting stem cells, but you have to abort a Panda fetus.

nooo, all you need is skin cells.

Ringleader wrote:There is actually a new method of getting stem cells, but you have to abort a Panda fetus.

nooo, all you need is skin cells.

This made me laugh. You actually found a way to make stem cell abortions even more ethically contraversial! Not only is the animal level in there... but the panda! I salute you.

x Gauz x wrote:Now Civbase, you have to understand some people have no other option. Having that child could potentially ruin their already created lives. Im making it sound like the embryo is a sacrafice, and it sort of is. It is their problem, but if they go through with the birth, that kid will probably have a shitty life in a orphanage anyways.

1. They had the child, it didn't just appear, so that's their problem. I'm not going to be happy with letting people kill children just because it's rough on them.
2. I'd rather have a shitty life in an orphanage than be dead. Wouldn't you?
3. You're a heartless devil.

As for Recon, there's something I'm getting at that you don't seem to comprehend, and that is that an embryo is a human. It has potential to become an adult, but it's not one yet. By your logic, you could have a child for science and do experiments and not feed it and kill it in the end on it all you want but it'd be okay because it had no potential to become an adult because it was created for the use of science.

It doesn't work that way, Recon. Why it was created doesn't matter. It's still a human.

I swear, if you ask why I will beat you with a spork because I've already explained it.

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:ummm.. no. Children and teenagers don't JUST have the potential to develop consciousness and emotions. THEY ALREADY HAVE THEM. That's the difference here. Embryo's have absolutely no senses/emotions, and do not contribute to the emotions of others.

And this makes them unhuman? Explain.

Yes, yes it does. Without emotions and self-consciousness, they are not a human to me. They might as well be killing dog embryos or such. I'm not going to force this mindset on you, and you will not be able to force your mindset on me. Sorry, morals are quite possibly the most relative thing out there.

In my opinion, using stem cells is sort of like donating blood. An egg, is an cell, you know you poop out thousands of cells? and that millions of cells die every minute in your body? and that there are about 100 trillion cells in your body? (and even more bacteria cells) and that there are 6 billion people to donate these cells? and that women only eject out eggs because its an adaptation that is characteristic of great apes to prevent disease, and that other animals simply absorb the eggs back into their bodies, destroying them? (those animal barbarians) Either way, eggs are readily ejected or destroyed, and if its an natural process, might as well make use of it.

A woman has tens of thousands of eggs, which she can sell for big bucks$$$

TNine wrote:

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:ummm.. no. Children and teenagers don't JUST have the potential to develop consciousness and emotions. THEY ALREADY HAVE THEM. That's the difference here. Embryo's have absolutely no senses/emotions, and do not contribute to the emotions of others.

And this makes them unhuman? Explain.

Yes, yes it does. Without emotions and self-consciousness, they are not a human to me.

Well, I don't think you're human until you've graduated law school.

It's ridiculous, but it uses the same concept as you are using. The human life is full of milestones, so what makes one more important than another?

TNine wrote:They might as well be killing dog embryos or such. I'm not going to force this mindset on you, and you will not be able to force your mindset on me. Sorry, morals are quite possibly the most relative thing out there.

I can't just convince you to follow a moral, but you can't deny logic. I can't convince you that killing humans is wrong, as that's a moral, but I can convince you that embryos are humans (well... maybe I can't, but I'm sure someone out there can).

Ringleader wrote:In my opinion, using stem cells is sort of like donating blood. An egg, is an cell, you know you poop out thousands of cells? and that millions of cells die every minute in your body? and that there are about 100 trillion cells in your body? (and even more bacteria cells) and that there are 6 billion people to donate these cells? and that women only eject out eggs because its an adaptation that is characteristic of great apes to prevent disease, and that other animals simply absorb the eggs back into their bodies, destroying them? (those animal barbarians) Either way, eggs are readily ejected or destroyed, and if its an natural process, might as well make use of it.

A woman has tens of thousands of eggs, which she can sell for big bucks$$$

Yes, but an unfertilized egg does not become a human. A woman does not have tens of thousands of fertilized eggs, so this point is... well... pointless.

does it have to be fertilized to yield stem cells?

millions of sperm, and thousands of eggs, how many are really fruitful?

Technically, we can do stem cell research with a woman's imbilical(sp) cord. It would yield better results too.

Don't know if that was said, I don't like reading...

Civbase wrote:As for Recon, there's something I'm getting at that you don't seem to comprehend, and that is that an embryo is a human. It has potential to become an adult, but it's not one yet. By your logic, you could have a child for science and do experiments and not feed it and kill it in the end on it all you want but it'd be okay because it had no potential to become an adult because it was created for the use of science.

It doesn't work that way, Recon. Why it was created doesn't matter. It's still a human.

I swear, if you ask why I will beat you with a spork because I've already explained it.

I comprehend what you are saying perfectly, you are simply being stubborn when 'addressing' my arguments.

The difference that is incurred whilst experimenting on a child is that you are causing it torment. You are torturing it both Psychologically and physically, and that is wrong.

That embryo which was used for 'science' never once felt pain or harbored any emotions against its situation, and it never had the potential to do so either. An embryo who is killed does not look back and say "gee, I wish I could have lived" as it never had, and never will have any form of conscious though. Even if you believe the embryo somehow develops existencially and gets shot up into heaven, I can't imagine why on earth someone accustomed to the likes of the great kingdom would wish to be on Earth with our kind.


The embryo does not, in any way, endure any form of torment, and that is what makes its lack of potential different from that of a captive lab rat.

Hurting a human, by principle, is wrong. You are damaging what has already become a living, breathing, conscious being, capable of love, and in possession of the affection of others. Killing something, an embryo, that has none of those traits and no potential to achieve them, is something I see nothing wrong with.

An unconscious child doesn't feel a thing, just like an embryo. Is it okay to torment it then?

Animals can feel as much as we can, why is it okay to torment and devour them?

Its life

Thats your answer, its life.

x Gauz x wrote:Its life

Thats your answer, its life.

What?

kslidz wrote:their are stem cells with in the human body that are just as manipulatable as embryonic ones

so why use them

Because there aren't. Not naturally. You can regress skin cells into stem cells, and that would work better than embryonic stem cells, since it has the patient's DNA in it.

kslidz wrote:if their are a million men frozen agaisnt their will (which is terrible in the first place) but it would take a lot of work and money to unfreeze them and therefore really has no chance of being unfrozen does that mean you can crunch them up
no its still murder

VBA: Very Bad Analogy.

x Gauz x wrote:

CivBase wrote:
That's because the embryo's not conscious, idiot.

Exactly


Now Civbase, you have to understand some people have no other option. Having that child could potentially ruin their already created lives. Im making it sound like the embryo is a sacrafice, and it sort of is. It is their problem, but if they go through with the birth, that kid will probably have a shitty life in a orphanage anyways.

Sigh...
If somebody is juggling loaded handguns and shoots himself in the gut, I'd hole him responsible.
If two people are engaging in an act of known consequences, I'd hold them responsible too.

Ringleader wrote:
A woman has tens of thousands of eggs, which she can sell for big bucks$$$

One or two a month, if I remember correctly.

Felix wrote:Technically, we can do stem cell research with a woman's imbilical(sp) cord. It would yield better results too.

Don't know if that was said, I don't like reading...

Nope. Not as flexible as embryonic or regressed skin cells.

x Gauz x wrote:Its life

Thats your answer, its life.

My dad's involvement at My Lai was life too.
Sorry, it's off on a tangent, but so was his comment, and I wanted to address it.

No more discussion along this vector is required.

Civ wrote:An unconscious child doesn't feel a thing, just like an embryo. Is it okay to torment it then?

RT wrote:Hurting a human, by principle, is wrong. You are damaging what has already become a living, breathing, conscious being, capable of love, and in possession of the affection of others. Killing something, an embryo, that has none of those traits and no potential to achieve them, is something I see nothing wrong with.

It is, by principle, wrong, as it has already exhibited such traits, or is at least loved by others. If a child who already exhibits those traits has its life extruded upon, and is made unconscious for the benefit of 'science,' it is wrong because its already human life has been unnaturally destroyed.

An embryo created for the cause of being harvested never was a conscious, emotional being in the first place.... and, once again, never had the potential to become such a thing.

Rasq wrote:My dad's involvement at My Lai was life too.
Sorry, it's off on a tangent, but so was his comment, and I wanted to address it

Your dad was at My Lai? Jesus....

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:An unconscious child doesn't feel a thing, just like an embryo. Is it okay to torment it then?

It is, by principle, wrong, as it has already exhibited such traits, or is at least loved by others. If a child who already exhibits those traits has its life extruded upon, and is made unconscious for the benefit of 'science,' it is wrong because its already human life has been unnaturally destroyed.

An embryo created for the cause of being harvested never was a conscious, emotional being in the first place.... and, once again, never had the potential to become such a thing.

I disagree that what once was should dictate what is... but I'll give you another situation using this reasoning.

What if the child was altered before birth to never be conscious? Would that be okay?

Civ wrote:I disagree that what once was should dictate what is... but I'll give you another situation using this reasoning.

I disagree that what might be should dictate what is.

Civ wrote:What if the child was altered before birth to never be conscious? Would that be okay?

If that was its purpose all along? I really don't care. Indeed it gives me a bad feeling in my stomach, but I don't see anything ethically wrong with it.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:I disagree that what once was should dictate what is... but I'll give you another situation using this reasoning.

I disagree that what might be should dictate what is.

I never claimed this. An embryo is not an adult, but it is a human.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:What if the child was altered before birth to never be conscious? Would that be okay?

If that was its purpose all along? I really don't care. Indeed it gives me a bad feeling in my stomach, but I don't see anything ethically wrong with it.

*sigh*

If it was made for research, it should be used for research.

CivBase wrote:An unconscious child doesn't feel a thing, just like an embryo. Is it okay to torment it then?

Animals can feel as much as we can, why is it okay to torment and devour them?

Yes, yes they do. And they are self-concious, thinking about something, in their sleep. I believe that self-consciousness is the point where an embryo becomes a human being. This fact cannot be proven wrong, nor right, but if society agrees on it, then it is right (cause morals work that way).

Are you a vegetarian?

how can you torment a non conscious, non feeling entity?

Its like torturing a bacteria.

Ringleader wrote:how can you torment a non conscious, non feeling entity?

Its like torturing a bacteria.

Or a piece of shrubbery

ReconToaster wrote:

Ringleader wrote:how can you torment a non conscious, non feeling entity?

Its like torturing a bacteria.

Or a piece of shrubbery

Don't you touch the shrubs now...

Is a painless death okay?

Non-feeling means one can't feel pain after all.


Once again, what about animals? They are self-conscious and feel pain. Again, the moral is not that killing a conscious, feeling entity is wrong, but that killing a human is wrong.

CivBase wrote:Is a painless death okay?

Non-feeling means one can't feel pain after all.


Once again, what about animals? They are self-conscious and feel pain. Again, the moral is not that killing a conscious, feeling entity is wrong, but that killing a human is wrong.

When does a human become a human? You seem to think it's when the egg is fertilized. I beg to differ.