| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | | |
| | : It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)? | | : It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)? |
| | + | |
| | + | ^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think. I care about whether or not stem cells have value. Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research. |
| | + | [[User:Cthx]] |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | :: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]] | | :: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]] |
| | :::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]] | | :::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]] |
| Line 21: |
Line 27: |
| | | | |
| | Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]] | | Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]] |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | YES for stem cells. Allow me to explain: |
| | + | |
| | + | *You are a killer. By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp. By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants). By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash. And you are shameless about it. Jesus condones killing. His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered '''en masse''' to make bread. Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected. Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important. After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life. |
| | + | *Why is human life so valuable? Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable. Why? One could say that human life is valuable because it is human. That, however, is an arbitrary distinction. The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties. Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have. Here are a few: |
| | + | ::::The ability to feel pain |
| | + | ::::The ability to think |
| | + | ::::The ability to have emotions |
| | + | Embryos, however, have none of the above properties. Therefore, they do not have the value of a human. |
| | + | |
| | + | |
| | + | *But what about God? God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary. Besides, how do you '''know''' that God does value them? After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him. And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above. |
| | + | |
| | + | *But don't embryos have potential? Why stop at embryos? Why even stop at conception? By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder. '''Potential''' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target. |
| | + | |
| | + | *But it's '''just not right'''?! If you have any other objections, please post. |
| | + | |
| | + | *Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative. To research stem cells. |
| | + | |
| | + | Q.E.D. |
| | + | [[User:Cthx]] |