I wholly understand the stance on abortion, but why prevent government funding for stem cell research? The cells are going to be destroyed regardless, and there is immense promise to help mankind. Look how far science has come studying cadavers. In my mind there would be no difference between the two.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why oppose Stem Cell Research?
- Thread starter Umaro
- Start date
Key
The Opener of Locks
Yes there is.
See the Egg, alone is not a life. If the Egg breaks down, no life could have come from it anyway, in it's current state. (Just like a Chicken Egg can not become a baby chicken, unless there is a rooster around, who is doing his job)
The Cadaver is an ended life. (But the people did not just go out and slaughter people so they could study bodies, they wait for people to die of their own accord, they do not force the process)
Stem Cells are harvested from a Fertilized Egg, hence the "Stem Cells" forming in the first place. The stem cells form the body parts that would make up the "Child", so, if we could get stem cells from an unfertilized egg, that would be one thing, but we can't.
We have to make the egg fertile and this it could be a human child, if given 9 months of incubation. But then we terminate the eggs development (An abortion), so we can harvest the cells.
That would be the objection to the research.
I hope I have given you an answer to this question.
God Bless
Key
Upvote
0
a cadaver is not going to come alive, a stem cell that is controversial is the ones that are capable of turning into a person, so to just destroy them is like killing.
I do not oppose if they can find stem cells in other ways that does not involve killing a potential person, they are right now looking to see if the afterbirth doctors are currently throwing away contain stem cells (afterbirth being that bloody mess when baby comes out at birth), which is very wonderful way if it works out as the doctors are seeing has very much potential (and the stem cells are just being thrown away).
I do not oppose if they can find stem cells in other ways that does not involve killing a potential person, they are right now looking to see if the afterbirth doctors are currently throwing away contain stem cells (afterbirth being that bloody mess when baby comes out at birth), which is very wonderful way if it works out as the doctors are seeing has very much potential (and the stem cells are just being thrown away).
Upvote
0
Most stem cells do not come from abortions, they come from when a person goes to get in vitro fertilization. 10 or so eggs are removed and fertilized, then put in one at a time until one takes. The rest are then discarded. I don't see how it is murder if the thing will die anyways.
Upvote
0
I am actually very ignorant of this whole process, and only have seen a little bit on the news, but I do trust it is so controversial for a reason.
is there a link you can supply to back up your claim here about the process?
I found this "stem cell controversy" in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy
I believe christians also don't appreciate people using invitro and then destroy them either. to continue to do that and making it more widespread and accepted is seen as killing too much. the politicians should also be fighting against that practice of invitro and destroying, I am sure many just are ignorant it was going on. we do our best to say that's not right.
there is ton of sin in the world, we are trying to help encourage all to appreciate and seek life, not just doctors in labs, but also people on the street, in jails, children, poor people, etc. we do our best, and God knows all this and desires us to appreciate life also.
Upvote
0
" is there a link you can supply to back up your claim here about the process?"
It's in the Second paragraph
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/technologies/other/stemcell.html
It's in the Second paragraph
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/technologies/other/stemcell.html
Upvote
0
The government has not ended funding for stem cell research. It ended funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research, and only to prevent creation of new stem cell lines.
There are other sources of stem cells, one that just became public information comes from the amniotic fluid. It has all the characteristics of embryonic stem cells. Further, there are huge number so stem cells from the umbilical cord and blood. There are adult stem cells as well.
To my knowledge there is no scientific basis that proves that embryonic stem cells are more able to provide medical advancements than any of the other sources of stem cells.
In vitro fertilization is a sin. It takes what God intended as an act of love between a man and a woman, to create new life and interferes with God's plan.
Taking the position that the embryo will die anyway, so what is the big deal? It's not murder because it will die anyway.
By that definition it is OK to kill anyone because we will all die, anyway. It's just a matter of timing?
Come on.
Life begins at conception. That is when the egg is fertilized.
All this politically correct nonsense put out by the liberal supreme court that it is not murder until the baby is in the third trimester is just that. Nonsense.
Who gave those 5 politically appointed humans divine wisdom to know when it is OK to kill an unborn baby?
By one definition, the babies created in IVF and not implanted, are simply "aborted".
Sorry if I come across as a little ticked off, but this whole topic disgusts me, especially when I hear people spouting nonsense about the issue.
Fred
There are other sources of stem cells, one that just became public information comes from the amniotic fluid. It has all the characteristics of embryonic stem cells. Further, there are huge number so stem cells from the umbilical cord and blood. There are adult stem cells as well.
To my knowledge there is no scientific basis that proves that embryonic stem cells are more able to provide medical advancements than any of the other sources of stem cells.
In vitro fertilization is a sin. It takes what God intended as an act of love between a man and a woman, to create new life and interferes with God's plan.
Taking the position that the embryo will die anyway, so what is the big deal? It's not murder because it will die anyway.
By that definition it is OK to kill anyone because we will all die, anyway. It's just a matter of timing?
Come on.
Life begins at conception. That is when the egg is fertilized.
All this politically correct nonsense put out by the liberal supreme court that it is not murder until the baby is in the third trimester is just that. Nonsense.
Who gave those 5 politically appointed humans divine wisdom to know when it is OK to kill an unborn baby?
By one definition, the babies created in IVF and not implanted, are simply "aborted".
Sorry if I come across as a little ticked off, but this whole topic disgusts me, especially when I hear people spouting nonsense about the issue.
Fred
Upvote
0
"In vitro fertilization is a sin. It takes what God intended as an act of love between a man and a woman, to create new life and interferes with God's plan. "
How come I've never heard of an opposition to in vitro fertilization? And what about couples who can't conceive in the typical manner? Should they be denied the right to have children?
How come I've never heard of an opposition to in vitro fertilization? And what about couples who can't conceive in the typical manner? Should they be denied the right to have children?
Upvote
0
Reply to orginal author adn to some repliers:
I agree with the original author. If you can cite sources, then it is useful to so.
As to couples, as in husband and wife, that are unable to physical conceive a child. There is no such right as a right to children. Your inherent human rights are a right, to life, liberty, protection of your property, from being falsely accused in a court of law, and if married between and man adn woman, then the exclusive right to be in their company with them in serious physical way, like sexual conduct. I would also include a right to religious liberty as well.
Anyone desiring a child does not have to spend $10,000 a shot to attempt to have a child by their own biological drives. opening their home to a child through adoption is legitamate in every manner and those men that do deserve to be loved.
As to the matter of stem cells, the government funding of research that is the responsibility of private entities to carry out is to them to fund alone by their own funds. Spending taxes, money that comes from you and me, is to be spent on us, not private interests in experimental research. Private corporations and research instituties have been doing that for literally a few hundred years and will continue to serve very well in that manner. Intentionaly ending human life in its earliest stages is murder.
Besdies, the area of adult stem-cell research is fully ethical and shows huge promise (as profit) because the cells are flexible in nature, controllable in their growth rates, and they hone by chemical signal to injured tissue readily.
The whole reason behind goverment-sponsered embryonic stem cell (ESC) research it just to have the money to pay the paychecks. The government, even while supporting excisting ESC lines, will not support human testing because ESC cells are inherently prolific. They multiple at the same rate as metastatic cancer (cancer that spreads throughout the body to multiple organs).
If I gave you ESC cells for an experienmental treatment, it would literally be giving you cancer, a out-of-control tissue growth by intention. There is a big problem to doing that with anyone. If you have DSC cells, then you would have to be on cancer drugs for the remainder of time that you would live. Drugs for life.
I agree with the original author. If you can cite sources, then it is useful to so.
As to couples, as in husband and wife, that are unable to physical conceive a child. There is no such right as a right to children. Your inherent human rights are a right, to life, liberty, protection of your property, from being falsely accused in a court of law, and if married between and man adn woman, then the exclusive right to be in their company with them in serious physical way, like sexual conduct. I would also include a right to religious liberty as well.
Anyone desiring a child does not have to spend $10,000 a shot to attempt to have a child by their own biological drives. opening their home to a child through adoption is legitamate in every manner and those men that do deserve to be loved.
As to the matter of stem cells, the government funding of research that is the responsibility of private entities to carry out is to them to fund alone by their own funds. Spending taxes, money that comes from you and me, is to be spent on us, not private interests in experimental research. Private corporations and research instituties have been doing that for literally a few hundred years and will continue to serve very well in that manner. Intentionaly ending human life in its earliest stages is murder.
Besdies, the area of adult stem-cell research is fully ethical and shows huge promise (as profit) because the cells are flexible in nature, controllable in their growth rates, and they hone by chemical signal to injured tissue readily.
The whole reason behind goverment-sponsered embryonic stem cell (ESC) research it just to have the money to pay the paychecks. The government, even while supporting excisting ESC lines, will not support human testing because ESC cells are inherently prolific. They multiple at the same rate as metastatic cancer (cancer that spreads throughout the body to multiple organs).
If I gave you ESC cells for an experienmental treatment, it would literally be giving you cancer, a out-of-control tissue growth by intention. There is a big problem to doing that with anyone. If you have DSC cells, then you would have to be on cancer drugs for the remainder of time that you would live. Drugs for life.
Upvote
0
Key
The Opener of Locks
ya know what really gets me.
We give our money to the Government, and then that money is given to companies to test things, and if they make something good, we gotta spend our money again, to receive the benefits of the test that were done with our money to start with.
Sounds like.... someone is getting the shaft in that little cycle.....
God Bless
Key
We give our money to the Government, and then that money is given to companies to test things, and if they make something good, we gotta spend our money again, to receive the benefits of the test that were done with our money to start with.
Sounds like.... someone is getting the shaft in that little cycle.....
God Bless
Key
Upvote
0
" We give our money to the Government, and then that money is given to companies to test things, and if they make something good, we gotta spend our money again, to receive the benefits of the test that were done with our money to start with."
I'd have to agree with you there. Though what bothers me even more is "The Holy Land Experience," which is an amusement park in Orlando, gets tax exemption because of religious status. Thing is though, its a for prophet (ha!) attraction that generates considerable funds on its own. They don't deserve any more of a tax break than the Magic Kingdom does. /rant
I'd have to agree with you there. Though what bothers me even more is "The Holy Land Experience," which is an amusement park in Orlando, gets tax exemption because of religious status. Thing is though, its a for prophet (ha!) attraction that generates considerable funds on its own. They don't deserve any more of a tax break than the Magic Kingdom does. /rant
Upvote
0
Similar threads
