There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
The only reason I have ever heard which, if true, clearly and convincingly supports embryonic stem- cell research is this one:
A human embryo is not a bearer of moral rights until much later in its development.[/ul]
There are two important versions of this argument. The first is that the essential moral moment for a human embryo is implantation into the uterine wall. The argument in support of this claim is that if nothing is done to an embryo in a dish, it will not grow to be a person, but if it is implanted, it will. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, the moral significance of an in vitro embryo falls short of the moral rights of an implanted and growing human embryo in the womb. This reason has convinced some people who otherwise are pro life to nevertheless support embryonic stem-cell research. They believe that implantation, not fertilization is the bright moral line after which the fetus must not be harmed.
The second version of this argument claims that neither the human embryo in a dish nor the fetus in a womb is a bearer of moral rights until birth or perhaps viability. The argument in support of this claim is that the ability to live outside a host body is an essential moral requirement to qualify for moral rights. If this argument is valid, it justifies not only embryonic stem-cell research, but also elective abortions. Of course this argument must overcome the facts of fetal development, but if it is defended successfully, embryonic stem-cell research is a moral piece of cake. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19486507/site/newsweek/
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
Kind of off the subject, but kind of not: what proof do we have of any benefits whatsoever coming from embryonic stem cell research? What proof do we have that embryonic stem cells are superior to others, such as umbillical cord stem cells?
I may be wrong here, but I haven't heard of any drug companies beating down any doors to push for privately funded research--the folks doing the yelling want government funded research. If there were any benefits, the drug companies would be all over it.
Finally, I'm not the least bit comfortable with anyoneexperimenting with human life, which an embryo is the most basic form of.
I don't think your second argument stands a chance, since someone can be charged with two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman. I hope the first one won't stand up either.
Chad
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
i look at it like this...
its none ofmy buisness what another human does behind closed doors...if they want to donate part of their body to science thats fine.
i work with a guy whos wife was picking up their daughter from school and while she was sitting on the bench outside the front doors waiting a tree fell on her(it was windy)and paralysed her from the waist down.
he/sheare for stem cell research or anything simular that might be ableto help people out in these kind of situations....if an egg can help a Bornchild or adult im all for it. nobody is forcing these people to donate to science.
nobody has the right to stop them....untill law says otherwise.
its a completely differentissuefrom abortionwith completely different motives. with that in mind i think abortion will always be legal and i think it should be...not saying i would want my girl to have an abortionbut if somebody else does thats ther choice...and its not an easy decision to make, it haunts a lot of woman/menfor therest of their life but its a choice they had to make...chances are youare good friends with a woman that has had one and you dont even know it...its not an easy choice but sometimes it has to be done.
how awsome would it be if your wife or child or yourself was confined to w wheelchair due to a freak accident....and alll the sudden one day they are going to therapy learning how to walk again after 10 years....being paralysed is a living hell i would hope that research that might help these people is fully supported by everyone
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
Quote:
ORIGINAL: LBR
Kind of off the subject, but kind of not: what proof do we have of any benefits whatsoever coming from embryonic stem cell research? What proof do we have that embryonic stem cells are superior to others, such as umbillical cord stem cells?
I may be wrong here, but I haven't heard of any drug companies beating down any doors to push for privately funded research--the folks doing the yelling want government funded research. If there were any benefits, the drug companies would be all over it.
Finally, I'm not the least bit comfortable with anyoneexperimenting with human life, which an embryo is the most basic form of.
I don't think your second argument stands a chance, since someone can be charged with two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman. I hope the first one won't stand up either.
Chad
It isnot really my argument or even my words, they are from the author to the article with the link.
I do however agreethat anembryo is not a person and support research using embryos.
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
"The specific reason for the rejection of this position is the affirmation that fertilization, the time when egg and sperm merge and form a new genotype, is considered to be the biological beginning of the new human life"
If you don't believe this then I guess it would be acceptable. So you don't believe this??
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Venator1
"The specific reason for the rejection of this position is the affirmation that fertilization, the time when egg and sperm merge and form a new genotype, is considered to be the biological beginning of the new human life"
If you don't believe this then I guess it would be acceptable. So you don't believe this??
I guess you don't
Didn't I just say that I did not think an embryo was a human being....so yes I don't.
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
I stand corrected--I should have said "the argument presented" or something along that line.
Again, why must it be embryonic stem cells? What is the reasoning behind it?
The sad thing about this is if some scientist came out and suggested a cure for cancer could be derived from bald eagle or spotted owl embryos (eggs), there would be an uproar, the scientist would probably be arressted under suspicion of destroying said embryos, and it would just be tough luck to the cancer patients because there is no way research would be allowed on those precious potential birds. Yet human embryos are discussed as if they are as disposable aspaper plates.
Chad
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
Quote:
ORIGINAL: LBR
I stand corrected--I should have said "the argument presented" or something along that line.
Again, why must it be embryonic stem cells? What is the reasoning behind it?
The sad thing about this is if some scientist came out and suggested a cure for cancer could be derived from bald eagle or spotted owl embryos (eggs), there would be an uproar, the scientist would probably be arressted under suspicion of destroying said embryos, and it would just be tough luck to the cancer patients because there is no way research would be allowed on those precious potential birds. Yet human embryos are discussed as if they are as disposable aspaper plates.
Location: Obama made me join the NRA for 5 years !
Posts: 2,181
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
a 6 month old baby has no concept of what is or isn't moral, the argument that they are not " bearer of moral rights until much later in its development " is really quite silly isn't it ?
some adults are incapable of moral capacity, the the ability itsself gauges when something is or isn't alive is absurd
if you can get stem cells without killing a human being to get them, okay, I don't have any problems with that, and I don't think anyone would. its allowing the killing of humans to harvest stem cells is what gets people in an uproar. Oh, I know the argument, " its not human yet " or " its not a person yet " or the best one " its being baked in the oven, buts its not completely cooked " but really its as simple as if you have to kill it to use the tissue, it shouldn't be allowed, why should it be more complicated than that ?>
RE: There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
If you have an egg and a sperm, in a dish, its not a person, it will sit in that dish untill it rots away and never become anything else.If its not implanted in a women its just a bunch of cells in a dish.Its not going to grow, its not going to survive, it will never form organs or breathe, pretty simple concept really.
There is only one moral reason to support embryonic stem-cell research. Here"™s what it is.
Didn't I just say that I did not think an embryo was a human being....so yes I don't.
