• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

stem cell research. Can a compromise be worked out?

talloulou said:
So what is the politically correct term for an abortion that takes place late and the fetus is delivered to the extent that its head is out of the mothers body before being killed? Or are you saying these types of abortions do no actually occur?
Click to expand...

Well, steen already explained the whole D&X thing...but the head of the fetus is still inside of the mother's body. It's the rest of it that's pulled out.

To answer your question about why this procedure is legal...it kinda has to be, because there are women that seek abortions in their second trimester for medical concerns, such as the woman having complications severe enough that she would not be able to carry the pregnancy to term, or the fetus being so severely disformed that it would not survive.
 
Rilzic said:
It is a religious debate right now...
Click to expand...

no, its not just a religious debate right now. It's a debate about when human life has intrinsic value. it is true that christians are more likely than athiests to believe that a human embryo has equal value to an adult human being, and the difference is often but not always due to christian doctrine, but there are many pro-choice christians, and pro-life athiests.

science can discribe life and its develepmental stages to us, but it cannot place a value on it. value is a completely subjective.
 
star2589 said:
no, its not just a religious debate right now. It's a debate about when human life has intrinsic value. it is true that christians are more likely than athiests to believe that a human embryo has equal value to an adult human being, and the difference is often but not always due to christian doctrine, but there are many pro-choice christians, and pro-life athiests.

science can discribe life and its develepmental stages to us, but it cannot place a value on it. value is a completely subjective.
Click to expand...

...Uh....didnt you just pretty much say.....this IS a religious debate?

Truth be told....if we go by science alone, there is no issue with Stem Cells, as science well understands the cells are Pre-Human so to speak. There is no brain, No thought, and no indication whatsoever that would differentiate this clump of cells from any other, short of the genetic code. From a strictly Logical standpoint...it makes no sense to deny use of this material for the benefit of Humankind....but Logic tends to fall by the wayside all to often when Dogma comes into play.
 
Our president has made it clear that it is a religious debate, devoid of the most fundamental scientific principles. In his remarks in his State of the Union address this year, while he chose his words carefully, reading between them isn't hard to do. Human/animal hybrids? Because a lab managed to grow an ear on a rat's back? Buying, selling, patenting embryos? They are already bought via surrogate mothers and in-vitro with donated eggs, for which the donor is compensated.
Some of these so-called 'hybrids' are important achievements- pig heart valves transplanted into human hearts-now science is working on using human genomes in pigs for this purpose. I see no problem with this and other cross-species transplantations on such small scales in scope, but huge in their life-saving abilities.
I'll put it this way: If my child was dying of an organ failure and a doctor approached me saying they just successfully grew that human organ in another animal as a result of embryonic stem cell transplantation, would I take it? Hell, yea!! I don't care where a life saver originated from.

To answer the statement about Christians and atheists: Don't be so sure about what atheists 'believe' about life and its value. We're not an organization with rules and probably more likely to put enough intrinsic value on all life since we don't normally or historically take up arms to prove our beliefs are better than anyone else's. I value some lives more than others simply because I have a vested emotional attachment to them, but that doesn't mean I devalue the rest.
 
tecoyah said:
...Uh....didnt you just pretty much say.....this IS a religious debate?

Truth be told....if we go by science alone, there is no issue with Stem Cells, as science well understands the cells are Pre-Human so to speak. There is no brain, No thought, and no indication whatsoever that would differentiate this clump of cells from any other, short of the genetic code. From a strictly Logical standpoint...it makes no sense to deny use of this material for the benefit of Humankind....but Logic tends to fall by the wayside all to often when Dogma comes into play.
Click to expand...

its not the science that religious people disagree on. they know there is no brain, or thought. the argument is the philosophical one that its wrong to kill something that would otherwise develope into a full human being, and/or that its wrong to try to draw a line between when something is fully human or not. as I said before, science can discribe life, but philosophy is what gives it value.
 
star2589 said:
its not the science that religious people disagree on. they know there is no brain, or thought.
Click to expand...
Plenty of pro-lifers do NOT know this, they have all sorts of weird and bizzare false claims about this. They are incredibly ignorant of the science of what they are arguing against.

the argument is the philosophical one that its wrong to kill something that would otherwise develope into a full human being, and/or that its wrong to try to draw a line between when something is fully human or not. as I said before, science can discribe life, but philosophy is what gives it value.
Click to expand...
So it IS a religious argument, yes.
 
steen said:
Plenty of pro-lifers do NOT know this, they have all sorts of weird and bizzare false claims about this. They are incredibly ignorant of the science of what they are arguing against.
Click to expand...

I've seen that in abortion debates, where the develemental stage of the fetus to be aborted has not been specified. the pro-choicers will be arguing about a blastocyst while the pro-lifers will be talking about a fetus 20 weeks into development, and neither will realise that they arent debating about the same thing. pretty funny to watch actually...

but anyway, I personally have not observed such confusion in stem cell research debates. meh. my word against yours I guess. but man...that would be pretty stupid.

steen said:
So it IS a religious argument, yes.
Click to expand...

religion and philosophy are two very different things, and they should not be confused with eachother.

many religious people share the philosophy that wrong to kill something that would otherwise develope into a full human being, and/or that its wrong to try to draw a line between when something is fully human or not. the philosophy itself is secular as no reference to religion is made, and as evidenced by the number of atheists who share that philosophy.

its when you go on to say that all life is "sacred" that the argument becomes religious. and many people do that, but certainly not all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom