• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A solution! Stem cell research instead of abortion

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I keep thinking about abortion, and the idea just popped in my head.
Why not, instead of just kill aborted babies, use them for stem cell research? Since the baby will die in both cases, it is an alternative to abortion which greatly benefits the scientific community.

This alternative method should be a good solution to the stem cell research issues.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[Mod Note]
I've updated the title of this thread to be more descriptive.
[/Mod Note]
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
I keep thinking about abortion, and the idea just popped in my head.
Why not, instead of just kill aborted babies, use them for stem cell research?
There are no babies in an abortion.

And stemcells come from in-vitro-fertilization. The stem cells are extracted long before the developmental stages that are present from an abortion.
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
[Mod Note]
I've updated the title of this thread to be more descriptive.
[/Mod Note]
Thanks!

There are no babies in an abortion.
Could you please, then, specify what is in an abortion?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
Could you please, then, specify what is in an abortion?
An embryo or a fetus (mostly embryos). "Baby" is a developmental stage that begins at birth, not before birth.
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
steen said:
An embryo or a fetus (mostly embryos). "Baby" is a developmental stage that begins at birth, not before birth.
So then, when is it considered wrong to abort? At what time do you draw the line and say "this cannot be aborted"? When can you make the distinction between a mass of cells and a thinking, living human being? Do you stop when the 'fetus' starts moving in the womb? When he/she starts responding to sounds (such as familiar voices) & light changes outside the womb? When it starts sucking its thumb? Hiccuping? Or when it kicks? Or do you just ignore this and call it a fetus so it sounds less alive.

Please, answer these questions! I am very interested to hear your response.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
There are no babies in an abortion.

And stemcells come from in-vitro-fertilization. The stem cells are extracted long before the developmental stages that are present from an abortion.
It is indeed a crime against humanity to allow children to be born who will suffer all their lives, whose life expectancy is real short, and whose care places an enormous burden on society. All this pain could have been easily avoided- abortion. I think that the real danger is that research such as stem cells, with enormous potential benefits are supressed mostly because it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. These same objections were raised against autopsies, anesteasia, artificial insemination, and the whole gentetic revolution of our day, but big time benefits have come from each of these.

A view of human nature rooted in our mystical past should not be our first criteria for making decisions about these things.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
So then, when is it considered wrong to abort? At what time do you draw the line and say "this cannot be aborted"?
I don't. It is not my decision any more than it is my decision when people get any other medical procedure. It is up to the patient and the physician, not anybody else.
When can you make the distinction between a mass of cells and a thinking, living human being?
Well, a human 'being" doesn' exist until the umbilical cord is clamped. Again, that has nothing to do with the right to an abortion anyway.
Do you stop when the 'fetus' starts moving in the womb? When he/she starts responding to sounds (such as familiar voices) & light changes outside the womb? When it starts sucking its thumb? Hiccuping? Or when it kicks?
All of which are reflexes and thus irrelevant to the issue of sentiense, which presumably you are driving at here.

Again, you, I or politicians have no business making medical decisions that are between the woman and her physician. So it doesn't matter what we think any mpore than it matters what you feel about heart surgery, stomach stapling or plastic surgery. They are all medical procedures, nothing else. And they are not the venue for politicians or fundie misogynist control freaks.
Or do you just ignore this and call it a fetus so it sounds less alive.
Your claim fails to make sense. Its status, its level of being "alive" has nothing to do with what you call it. Calling it a fetus or an embryo doesn't make it any less "alive." I am not sure where you got that bizzare idea from?

To me, it simply is just another medical procedure, nothing else. And that is so regardless of whether you call it an embryo, fetus, baby, child, person, or uncle. It is all the same non-sentient tissue. And it still doesn't have the right to use a person's bodily resources against that person's will. YOU certainly doesn't have such a right, so obviously the non-sentient tissue should have even less rights.

Now, is it clear to you that the argments about what the embryo or fetus is are utterly pointless in my eyes?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
kal-el said:
It is indeed a crime against humanity to allow children to be born who will suffer all their lives, whose life expectancy is real short, and whose care places an enormous burden on society. All this pain could have been easily avoided- abortion. I think that the real danger is that research such as stem cells, with enormous potential benefits are supressed mostly because it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. These same objections were raised against autopsies, anesteasia, artificial insemination, and the whole gentetic revolution of our day, but big time benefits have come from each of these.

A view of human nature rooted in our mystical past should not be our first criteria for making decisions about these things.
Agreed. Politics have no business in people's personal health care.
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, a human 'being" doesn' exist until the umbilical cord is clamped. Again, that has nothing to do with the right to an abortion anyway.
It has everything to do with it. If a man were to chop the head off of a born baby whose cord had not been severed yet, would it be murder?

Your claim fails to make sense. Its status, its level of being "alive" has nothing to do with what you call it. Calling it a fetus or an embryo doesn't make it any less "alive." I am not sure where you got that bizzare idea from?
I said "sounds", not "is". I was saying that calling it a fetus just makes it sound less alive.

To me, it simply is just another medical procedure, nothing else. And that is so regardless of whether you call it an embryo, fetus, baby, child, person, or uncle. It is all the same non-sentient tissue. And it still doesn't have the right to use a person's bodily resources against that person's will. YOU certainly doesn't have such a right, so obviously the non-sentient tissue should have even less rights.
I could say that removing your brains right now is a medical procedure, nothing else. It's what we do to fetuses anyway, so what's the difference?
When does it become sentient then?

If a women does not want to go through 9 months of 'having their bodily resources used', why the hell are so many women performing the biological function invented for that purpose anyway? If women don't want to get pregnant, then maybe they shouldn't have sex. Gee, what a simple and efficient solution! Then we would have no need for abortions!
 

Nezdragon

Member
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
8
Location
Over there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
It is indeed a crime against humanity to allow children to be born who will suffer all their lives, whose life expectancy is real short, and whose care places an enormous burden on society. All this pain could have been easily avoided- abortion. I think that the real danger is that research such as stem cells, with enormous potential benefits are supressed mostly because it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. These same objections were raised against autopsies, anesteasia, artificial insemination, and the whole gentetic revolution of our day, but big time benefits have come from each of these.

A view of human nature rooted in our mystical past should not be our first criteria for making decisions about these things.
What pain? Who are these children being born who will suffer all their lives?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
It has everything to do with it. If a man were to chop the head off of a born baby whose cord had not been severed yet, would it be murder?
That has nothing to do with abortions. Your emotional propaganda doesn't match reality. So don't claim that it has "everything to do with it." It still isn't a baby or a person until it is born. It still isn't an individual until the umbilical cord is clamped/cut. (Oh, and as for your STUPID analogy, per being born, it is a person, and therefore it would be murder. Now stupid hypotheticals without foundation in reality are just that, STUPID!!)

But AS I POINTED OUT, it has nothing to do with abortions, as the right to an abortion is based on the woman's bodily autonomy. Unless you think the status of the fetus gives it a right to use the woman's bodiily resources against her will, you simply have no argument.
I said "sounds", not "is". I was saying that calling it a fetus just makes it sound less alive.
But that is the problem. It DOESN'T sound less alive. YOU may have decided that it sounds less alive if you use the proper descriptor of "fetus" instead of the emotional hyperbole of calling it "baby." But REALITY is that there is no difference in how "alive" it "sounds."
I could say that removing your brains right now is a medical procedure, nothing else.
Well, it wouldn't be. If there was a medical indication for me as a patient to have my brain removed, then that is indeed what it it would be, just a medical procedure. Why would you think it was any different.
It's what we do to fetuses anyway, so what's the difference?
Ah, more hyperbole. Nice try of making stupid claims about what is typical. Couldn't you at least be honest when making claims?
When does it become sentient then?
The exact moment is unknown. But we know for sure that it is not happening before the 26th week of pregnancy.
If a women does not want to go through 9 months of 'having their bodily resources used', why the hell are so many women performing the biological function invented for that purpose anyway?
"invented"? More hyperbole. women are having sex for the purpose they are having sex, not for the purpose YOU ascribe them. If they are having sex just to have sex, thent hat is the purpose. You have no business telling them why they ought to be doing things. They have their life to live, it is not your life to live through them.
If women don't want to get pregnant, then maybe they shouldn't have sex.
And maybe they should. It is not your business to tell people why they should be having sex.

Sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. having sex is solely consent to having sex, nothing else.

and if some unwanted outcome occurs, then we treat that outcome just like we treat outcomes from all other activities.

Or are you saying that we shouldn't treat lung cancer in smokers? Are you saying we shouldn't treat heart attacks in people who ate burgers and didn't exercize?

That is just a weird argument.
Gee, what a simple and efficient solution! Then we would have no need for abortions!
And people shopuld just stop doing all the things that are bad for them and we wouldn't have to treat them for it. NEWSFLASH: It is noen of your business how others live their lives. If you don't like abortions, don't have one.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nez Dragon said:
What pain? Who are these children being born who will suffer all their lives?
In some cases, we can detect before birth, if a child is harboring a certain chronic illness. IMO it would be wrong to condenm this child to a life of hardship because of some people's stupid "ethical" beliefs.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nez Dragon said:
If a women does not want to go through 9 months of 'having their bodily resources used', why the hell are so many women performing the biological function invented for that purpose anyway? If women don't want to get pregnant, then maybe they shouldn't have sex. Gee, what a simple and efficient solution! Then we would have no need for abortions!
What are the men doing? Twiddling their thumbs and listening to Abba? :roll:

Almost a third of abortions are performed on married women. Do you want married couples to stop having sex, too? Reserve it only as a means of pro-creation? How very Catholic of you.
 
Top Bottom