The debate "Federal funding for stem cell research ought to continue under the next President" was started by
March 30, 2016, 4:21 am.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 2 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Sosocratese posted 4 arguments, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
fadi posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Sosocratese, PsychDave, ReedMurphy, danielle, djchivers and 3 visitors agree.
fadi and 1 visitor disagree.
You're saying that like it's fact. That is probably one of the most contested statements in the whole abortion debate. If you want to make that claim, you really have to justify it. The majority of the scientific community is actually not on your side on this one. Usually, this is a theological argument resting in the impossible to prove concept of the human soul.
Now, this is somewhat irrelevant to this line of questioning as these embryos will be terminated no matter what and so the only real question is whether or not we can harvest the tissue at that point.
not in an invitro clinic. they only implant the embryos until they succeed in a pregnancy. the remaining lab fertilized embryos are destroyed. therefore using those cells for research or incineration makes no difference to life or death.
well the first cell of a fetus is alive because it will eventually become a child right ?
Well, they're not really alive... It's not a fetus or anything. Usually embryos must be harvested very early, usually when it's a cluster of about 100 cells. The majority of the tissue would be procured from in-vitro clinics. Since common practice is to fertilize many eggs in the lab at once and implanting a few at a time until pregnancy takes, often times there are "left over" embryos. These embryos are incinerated if not used. So they could provide a steady and inoffensive way to procure cells.
Actual abortions are usually too late to harvest Embryonic stem cells. We can still harvest some other types of stem cells from them, but not Embryonic. This lowers the number of abortion associated stem cell harvests to a very negligible number.
well if the embryos were alive it is not right to kill them but if the stem cells are taken from embryos that are not alive as you claim i with the research and organ donation
But no one is killing an embryo to get stem cells. You're implying that an abortion is being performed with the sole purpose of obtaining stem cells. That is absolutely NEVER the case.
Embryonic stem cells can only be obtained through voluntary donations of abortions. That is to say that all the embryos that would be harvested for cells would be aborted even if they weren't harvested. In other words, there cannot be a single instance where an abortion is performed for the sole purpose of harvesting cells.
So, stem cells are essential organ donations. We don't force people to donate a part of a liver, just like no one is forcing abortions. It is also illegal to sell or buy organs. It is also illegal to profit from any fetal tissue. Therfore no can be coerced into aborting their pregnancy for stem cell harvest....
Are you opposed to organ donors?
I ask because no one is killed to harvest stem cells. The stem cells are never taken from living embryos and, as has been pointed out, they are not allowed to be sold, so it is not a monetary decision. Do you consider it morally better to dispose of them rather than use them to try to save lives?
as long as it depends on embryos iam against it because killing a person to get stem cells is immoral
Obama lifted the Bush moratorium on federal funding for stem cell research. There are a few issues that remain from the Bush era (limited number of genetic lines for instance). All GOP candidates oppose embryonic stem cell research. They cite a plethora of reasons including fetal welfare, child welfare, various slipper slope arguments (Sen. Paul told The Washington Post "“factories where you’d grow babies for their body parts.”), also there are a few respect for life arguments.
It is fair to say that we can dismiss the child welfare concerns immediately. Sen. Lindsey Graham asked “Americans to stand up and stop harvesting organs from little babies,” for example, while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said future generations will “call us barbarians for murdering millions of babies.” But fetal tissue research never involves living fetuses, let alone born children. So the concern about child welfare is misplaced. To the contrary, a major goal of research on fetal tissue is to improve newborn health. Take one example: it used to be that premature babies died at high rates because we didn’t know how to help their immature lungs get enough air to survive. Now when babies are born early, doctors apply a powerful therapy called Surfactant whose development in the 1980s was made possible by research on fetal tissue.
The fetal welfare claims are also flawed. Concern for fetal welfare can’t say what’s wrong with medical research that uses tissue cells from fetuses that are no longer alive. That’s because the alternative to fetal tissue’s being used for research isn’t to “become a child,” but to be thrown away. Accordingly, this research doesn’t destroy any fetuses, and preventing it wouldn’t save any. Women and doctors are already forbidden from being paid to use fetal tissue. That separates the decision to terminate a pregnancy from any research that it might later contribute to. So there’s no “maximiz[ing] the value of body parts,” as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie claimed, to “sell on the open market for profit.”