Religions > Atheism > OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fester" |
| Date: |
25 May 2005 04:19:37 AM |
| Object: |
OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
The only argument that I've heard against this research is from those who
maintain that embryos are human life. My question is posed as a ypothetical
scenario. Suppose that you were in a hospital and a small child was sitting
near you. You are in a room that contains a freezer stocked with thousands
of embryos. Now suppose that the building is on fire, and you can either
carry out the dishes of embryos or you can carry out the child, but not
both. The child will die if you don't carry him. Would you choose to save
the thousands of "people" in the freezer or would you choose to save the
child?
--
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and
he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion"
Edmund Burke
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
25 May 2005 12:15:30 PM |
|
|
In article <JqXke.170$Bk3.43940@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
says...
The only argument that I've heard against this research is from those who
maintain that embryos are human life.
It is impossible for these several day old zygotes to be "human life",
since human life and death is defined by presence of detectable brain
activity. Since these microscopic clumps of cells do not have brains,
they cannot be a live human, by definition, nor can they feel pain, etc,
etc.
My question is posed as a ypothetical
scenario. Suppose that you were in a hospital and a small child was sitting
near you. You are in a room that contains a freezer stocked with thousands
of embryos. Now suppose that the building is on fire, and you can either
carry out the dishes of embryos or you can carry out the child, but not
both. The child will die if you don't carry him. Would you choose to save
the thousands of "people" in the freezer or would you choose to save the
child?
Well Fester, if you're the same person I remember, I'm glad that you're
experiencing a brief moment of sanity by questioning the official repug
position of rabid opposition to any form of abortion or embryonic stem
cell research. I'm surprised that you're capable of this, considering
how far you usually stick your tongue up George Bush's *****.
Now then, in answer to your question, of course the overwhelming
majority of sane people and even most people afflicted with the neuroses
of catholicism and other judeo-xian gawd beliefs, see a disconnect when
conflating a two-day-old embryo with an actual human child.
That's why many dishonest repug propagandists from the Bush/Fox press
corps, constantly work so hard to manufacture this delusion and to muddy
this distinction by juxtaposing photo-ops of children with raving about
stem cells. They must constantly attempt to maintain the fiction that
there is effectively no difference between a stem cell and a child in
order to keep their moronic religious bible beaters placated.
Most people, except for a few religious crazies, would not consider a
woman who takes a birth control pill to be a murderer and would not
advocate locking her up for life, as we might in the case of someone who
kills a happy, healthy five-year-old in cold blood. Most people, except
for a few religious crazies, see nothing wrong with first trimester
abortion, which represents 90% of all abortions and takes place well
before fetal viability or the development of higher consciousness. So
called "embryonic" stem cells are extracted from a clump of cells that
is often less than 5% through the first trimester. Regardless of your
view about abortion, there is absolutely no way that a several day old
embryo can have a brain and it is brain activity which we use as the
standard to say whether a human being is alive or dead. Certainly,
without a brain, it is impossible for this microscopic clump of cells, a
hundred times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, to
feel pain, regret, etc.
What it comes down to is this. A fertilized embryo is like the
blueprint of a building. But the blueprint itself is not the building,
nor is destroying the blueprint equivalent to destroying the building.
Likewise, an embryo is not a human, but merely the blueprint for
constructing a human over a process of nine months time. People who
oppose embryonic stem cell research do not do so for rational reasons.
They are often completely brainwashed and largely fail to realize the
way that their misinformed emotional reactions are being manipulated by
crass politicians and preachers. Republican presidents and the
republican congress have been actively obstructing fetal and embryonic
research for over 20 years now. If we had not had decades of
obstruction by these self-righteous theocrats, then the US would
probably have continued to lead the world in this form of research and
we may have even been able to cure diseases like juvenile diabetes by
now. That would be something that affects actual children and adults,
rather than microscopic dots whom republicans like to temporarily vest
with more rights than real people.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
25 May 2005 02:47:40 PM |
|
|
on 25 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fester dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
The only argument that I've heard against this research is from those
who maintain that embryos are human life.
I saw that in another post - Bush is against stem cell research because you
would be killing people to save people. This is the same logic behind the
death penalty and the war(s) in the ME, both of which the hypocrite
overwhelmingly supports.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
25 May 2005 04:58:02 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns966182318286vicman@127.0.0.1>,
says...
on 25 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fester dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
The only argument that I've heard against this research is from those
who maintain that embryos are human life.
I saw that in another post - Bush is against stem cell research because you
would be killing people to save people.
Yes, well, he can't even get that right. Stem cell research kills
NOBODY because the stem cells never developed a brain to begin with.
Therefore they are not live people, as brain activity determines whether
a human being is alive or dead. Stem cell research destroys microscopic
organisms far smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, and
it does so, with the hope of helping hundreds of millions of fully grown
human beings.
Furthermore, his policy of doing nothing also kills people. Thus, by
trying to save stem cells, his policies destroy real human life. It puts
roadblocks in the way of curing disease and condemns people with
terminal illnesses to die unnecessarily. Just in the last five years,
it's possible that cures to various diseases could have been found if he
had not obstructed the research.
This is the same logic behind the
death penalty and the war(s) in the ME, both of which the hypocrite
overwhelmingly supports.
Yes, but it should be noted that Bush often doesn't even bother with
such excuses a lot of the time. When his FDA votes to put NSAIDs
back on the market, he doesn't care that it kills people. When he moves
to cap liability awards, he doesn't care that the policy makes it easier
for negligent companies to kill people and get away with it. When he
cuts health benefits to pay for tax cuts, that kills people. Thirty
million americans don't have health insurance, but he doesn't want to do
anything about it and, in fact, has worked to prevent anything being
done about it. Even though he knows that his environmental policies
poison our air and water, he would rather let it kill people, so long as
it makes a profit.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
26 May 2005 07:17:55 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns966182318286vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 25 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fester dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
The only argument that I've heard against this research is from those
who maintain that embryos are human life.
I saw that in another post - Bush is against stem cell research
because you would be killing people to save people. This is the same
logic behind the death penalty and the war(s) in the ME, both of which
the hypocrite overwhelmingly supports.
That is not the same logic behind the death penalty or the war in the
mideast. I'm sorry to see such single-track "reasoning" coming from the
liberal side of alt.atheism.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
26 May 2005 11:18:50 AM |
|
|
on 26 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns966182318286vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 25 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fester dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
The only argument that I've heard against this research is from those
who maintain that embryos are human life.
I saw that in another post - Bush is against stem cell research
because you would be killing people to save people. This is the same
logic behind the death penalty and the war(s) in the ME, both of which
the hypocrite overwhelmingly supports.
That is not the same logic behind the death penalty or the war in the
mideast. I'm sorry to see such single-track "reasoning" coming from the
liberal side of alt.atheism.
How not? With the death penalty you are killing a person (usually a
violent criminal) to save the lives of those who he might otherwise harm
unchecked. In the ME war, Bush is killing insurgents who would otherwize
kill those he is trying to save - or so he says. The war is billed as the
"War on Terror" - Fred, I'm amazed you can ignore the obvious here.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
26 May 2005 11:45:11 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns96625EC983BEDvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 26 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns966182318286vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 25 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fester dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
The only argument that I've heard against this research is from
those who maintain that embryos are human life.
I saw that in another post - Bush is against stem cell research
because you would be killing people to save people. This is the
same logic behind the death penalty and the war(s) in the ME, both
of which the hypocrite overwhelmingly supports.
That is not the same logic behind the death penalty or the war in the
mideast. I'm sorry to see such single-track "reasoning" coming from
the liberal side of alt.atheism.
How not? With the death penalty you are killing a person (usually a
violent criminal) to save the lives of those who he might otherwise
harm unchecked.
And to punish him for killing the ones that he already killed.
In the ME war, Bush is killing insurgents who would
otherwize kill those he is trying to save - or so he says.
And to secure the freedom of those people.
The war is
billed as the "War on Terror" - Fred, I'm amazed you can ignore the
obvious here.
Vic, I am amazed that you can ignore everything but one single aspect of
an issue and then complain that someone is a hypocrite for seeing more
of the story than you do.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
26 May 2005 03:06:35 PM |
|
|
on 26 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
How not? With the death penalty you are killing a person (usually a
violent criminal) to save the lives of those who he might otherwise
harm unchecked.
And to punish him for killing the ones that he already killed.
We are still killing someone to save others.
In the ME war, Bush is killing insurgents who would
otherwize kill those he is trying to save - or so he says.
And to secure the freedom of those people.
Right, we are killing people to save others.
The war is
billed as the "War on Terror" - Fred, I'm amazed you can ignore the
obvious here.
Vic, I am amazed that you can ignore everything but one single aspect of
an issue and then complain that someone is a hypocrite for seeing more
of the story than you do.
Bush has no problem with killing thousands of people in a war to save
others. Why does he have such a problem with the same concept in stem cell
research?
Bush (and other pro-lifers) see stem cells as little frozen people, which
is wrong, but in his own context it does make him a self-important
hypocrite, doesn't it?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: A question for those who oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research |
26 May 2005 04:05:42 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns966285666D6A9vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 26 May 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
How not? With the death penalty you are killing a person (usually a
violent criminal) to save the lives of those who he might otherwise
harm unchecked.
And to punish him for killing the ones that he already killed.
We are still killing someone to save others.
Now you're being simpleminded. That's not the *only* reason.
In the ME war, Bush is killing insurgents who would
otherwize kill those he is trying to save - or so he says.
And to secure the freedom of those people.
Right, we are killing people to save others.
Now you're being simpleminded *again*. Why do you have so much trouble
holding two ideas in your head at once?
The war is
billed as the "War on Terror" - Fred, I'm amazed you can ignore the
obvious here.
Vic, I am amazed that you can ignore everything but one single aspect
of an issue and then complain that someone is a hypocrite for seeing
more of the story than you do.
Bush has no problem with killing thousands of people in a war to save
others. Why does he have such a problem with the same concept in stem
cell research?
It's not the same concept.
Bush (and other pro-lifers) see stem cells as little frozen people,
which is wrong, but in his own context it does make him a
self-important hypocrite, doesn't it?
I'm not defending his position, I fully support the idea of full-scale
embryonic stem-cell research, up to and including cloning and chimerae.
But I still don't consider him a hypocrite just because he isn't as
"consistent" as a simpleminded liberal who only looks at one aspect of a
situation.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Even if the grass is greener on the other side,
they still have to cut it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
