Killing Babies?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/ap_on_go_pr_wh/stem_cells;_ylt=AiUzSgdto7n34GBIDnWZslOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

I'm sure there will be plenty of critics, so lets not get over board and please support your answers with facts and not stuff you made up and/or think you heard/read.

Is killing/murdering babies for the health of someone else morally right? Since the children are the future, why are we killing them off and why cannot anyone see the importance in that?

Jada, ty for atleast trying to explain your thoughts.
You mentioned war, so he we go. Be it that the gov't is money hungry, not just the repubs on demos, but all and that we live in more of a representative democracy and not particularly run by the people, is see your comparison.
I probably should not have posted this question b/c it's a morally based question. If my morals are that God created us and that we shouldn't be tampering with something we know nothing about(though we think we do), doesn't meant that you or anyone else has the same morals.
My aim was at using something that could have been alive for research. What if embryo was the one who would find a cure for cancer, or whatever diseases you listed. All our medical advances have come from time and learning, not by forcing the matter, taking a life for a life. What is the difference from now and then?

Heinz, to make yourself not look like a complete idiot, try supporting your answer instead of making a liberal remark.

Answer 1

First, it's not killing babies, they're talking about embryos. We're not talking about taking a 3 month old and murdering it. We're talking about an embryo that would more than likely be discarded or one that was created in a lab. Not a fetus, not a living child. A group of cells that if given the right environment COULD possibly grow into a human being.

If you had a 6 month old baby who was dying of lymphoma, wouldn't you want everything possible that could be done to find a cure being done? Including pulling a fertilized egg out of storage or grabbing it before it hits the trashcan? Sure, there are people who are having children created from these to adopt, but IMHO, they shouldn't be doing that until all the children that have already been born who need to be adopted are adopted. Why create a new life when thousands are suffering every day?

Look at it this way: a woman has fertility issues and goes for invitro fertilization. They harvest her eggs, mate them with male sperm and implant them in her uterus, HOPING one will stick in there and make it. The rest of the fertilized eggs are discarded, thrown out as medical waste when she is successful in having a child. That's not to say people are supporting throwing babies in trashcans. Wouldn't it make more sense that she be allowed to make the decision whether or not to allow those embryos to be used to aid researches in the search for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, AIDS, Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, etc., etc., etc.?

The problem is not whether or not to use embryonic stem cells to do research, the true problem is whether the federal government will help foot the bill for it because with or without federal support, this research will continue, albeit slowly and the breakthroughs will come from another country. And the bigger problem is the duality of our government: That article you posted previously had a quote in there that stated "The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research, it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder. He's one of them," spokesman Tony Snow said. Ummmm....many people consider our presence in Iraq contributing to murder, but in that case, it's ok for the feds to cover the costs. Know why: MONEY

War is a profit-producing endeavor. The payback on this investment could be potentially huge.

Research, not profit-producing for the government. They get nothing in return if a cure for Alzheimers is found. Those who will make the profit will be the pharmaceutical companies who develop the drugs to cure the disease.

Our government is based on money, plain and simple. If it were truly government of the people, by the people, and for the people, this wouldn't even be an issue. "Several polls have shown the new bill is supported by a clear majority of Americans." So, what's the hold up?

Answer 2

Awesome question,can't wait to see who is willing to tackle this one. My opinion is that if the health of the mother of unborn child is at risk everything should be done for both, but if there is no choice in the matter usually it's made for you by someone who's decision's are final.

Answer 3

not sure what you mean here...
killing unborn or even babies already born is not right.
of course, US law does allow abortion, but that should be done within the first trimester of pregnancy.
do i agree with abortion: not really, I think woman arent given ALL the information or ALL the options. I think abortion carries a very heavy price and most women regret it.
do i think we should ban abortion: NO, i dont agree with it, but I also dont agree with many things protected by the law. Rather than ban abortion, maybe we should educate, give alternate solutions and prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

Answer 4

Who contemplates killing babies?
If this is a stupid reference to embryos then you have absolutely no idea what you are mouthing off about.
Even a fetus is not a baby, until it is able to live outside its mother.
And no one wants to do anything even with fetuses

Answer 5

to the idiot baldy heinz, ur a evil moron, even a fetus is human u muppet

Answer 6

I don't care what they do, but if they even TOUCH any of the Muppet babies I'm protesting.

Answer 7

who would kill babies i don't care if u haven't slept in 3 months t a year you don't do that there so loving and cute

Answer 8

Good question