Although it probably will. Anyway, i just answered a "?" that asked about stem cell research. The guy asked those who were against it if they would be willing to sign papers saying that they would not benefit from it if some cures were found using it. Of course some people said YES, they would. Which is their right.
Anyway, my question is IF they really were to get in a situation where their child was dying of something & some cure was found by using stem cells & they refused to have it done, because they don't believe in using stem cells & their child died; what makes that any different than if they had had an abortion?
i am serious, please don't all freak out on me. i am truly interested in knowing what people have to say about this. Before people start slamming me yes i know that this situation is not possible as of today but it really could be one day. OK start slamming...but too bad and i will report it. Thank you in advance for your time.
2006-07-20 17:41:48 · 20 answers · asked by purple dove 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It seems amazing to me how this political question has generated so much debate among people about morality. Your question is a great one because it points out the possible immorality of people who believe they are deciding this question from a moral high ground but at the same time aren't thinking through the real-life implications of their position. Even the President has said that it is O.K. to use some fetal stem cells for government funded research (Those in existence before July, 1999) but beyond a "moral threshold" to use those that came into existence after July, 1999. What the hell kind of logic is that if the question were one of morality? The White House veto of legislation supported by almost 2/3rds of the Senate and 70% of Americans is just a cynical political ploy to play to the 25-30% of Americans who are also the ultra-conservative "base" of the Republican party for the upcoming mid-term elections. It was cast as a "moral" issue by the right-wing spin machine in order to justify a public policy unsupported by the significant majority of citizens. Nice critical thinking with your question.
2006-07-20 17:55:13 · answer #1 · answered by Jake 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
A person who would not be for stem cell research is probably not going to be for abortion either. Abortion is different because someone chooses to abort before the baby is even out of the womb. The only comparison is that in both situations in your question the baby dies. I do not believe that abortion and someone not in favor of stem cell research, but later on needing is are not related. What you are comparing is not close enough related. Most people if there child were dying would do whatever that was humanly possible to save theire baby. I think this would be the only way some peoples view would change on stem cell research.
2006-07-20 17:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ok, serious answer. The difference is that the child was given a chance to live. Would that be the right thing to do? I don't think so. Even though I am against embryonic stem cell research and abortion, I would do anything to save my child. I advocate other forms of stem cell research, and I think that if the family of a newborn child doesn't want to bank the cord blood, it should be used for those purposes.
2006-07-20 17:49:12 · answer #3 · answered by The Apple Chick 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, lets clear-up something. Stem cell research is already curing people with leukemia and other "incurable" diseases. The stem cells used to create these cures were donated by adults. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's a very charitable thing to do. The media and extremist liberals try to make the Church, the President and others look anti-science by failing to publicize this fact.
Secondly, refusing treatment obtained through immoral means is heroically charitable, although Christians are not required to do so. The big difference in the two scenarios is that abortion is active, direct, intentional murder, but refusing treatment is passive. It leaves things in God's hands. It makes a difficult decision based on strong morals.
2006-07-20 17:56:14 · answer #4 · answered by infinity 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
President Bush's veto does NOT affect any research. The research is going on now and will keep going on. No federal money will be spent on it and embryos can only be used in research if the 'owners' consent to it.
Private research projects are still going on. Most biologists and physicians believe that embryonic stem cell research has little chance of curing any disease. Other stem cell sources have been found to cure many things, but the press has overstated the potential for embryonic stem cells to yield anything of value.
The research is legal and ongoing, but the bio-tech companies ARE NOT highly invested in it, THEY DON'T THINK IT WILL WORK.
RESEARCH MONEY is the ONLY thing affected by the veto. The research is going on now and will continue to go on. Anyone who wants to do so MAY donate embryos for this research. PERIOD. THIS IS BLOWN TOTALLY OUT OF PROPORTION BY THE PRESS.
2006-07-20 17:51:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because if I had an abortion I am actively ending my child's life. If I just let my child die I am passively ending my child's life. Neither is a good or moral alternative. However using a stem-cell researched cure falls into a different category all together. By using stem-cell research I am killing another to cure my child. It's like saying if you had the cure for my child's disease in your tissue would it be okay for me to kill you in order for my child to live? And as a Christian I'd say no. I wouldn't want my baby to die but I can't actively kill you or anyone else (even an unborn child) to save my child. Unless of course - like John (see his answer up above) said - we are talking about using adult stem-cells that were donated (not forcibly taken) or donated umbilical cords. I hope this helps.
2006-07-20 17:48:04 · answer #6 · answered by desmartj 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it is not the same at all. Harvesting a potential human in the form of a frozen, fertilized embryo, is not murder, but it does lie in the quasi-moral area of decisions that society makes about life all the time. Having a real, living, breathing baby die is very traumatic for everyone involved. I don't think many people who really notice...certainly, other than those aware of these clumps of cells, which, if given the right circumstances COULD become that living baby which people care about...would care. This is not as the domain of society to protect these potential beings...unless you want to ban the ENTIRE in-vitro process all-together, since there are more 'failures' than 'successes'...and therefore most of them are fated (by the process itself) to die before achieving life. We...and doctors in particular...make life-and-death decisions on a regular basis. Without experimentation, we will not have even the potential for cures that could otherwise help future LIVE children and adults. Is is worth this sacrifice...those who fight against it would say no, it's not. However your question speaks more to about dying than it does about living. Death is inevitable...none of us will get 'out of here' alive!?!
2006-07-20 18:04:54 · answer #7 · answered by Rev Debi Brady 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stem cells are not taken from "embryos"; they are taken from blastocysts of a few hundred cells which could not possibly live on their own. If not used, they will be discarded.
And the extraction of the stem cells does not necessarily kill the blastocyst.
Are they going to deny any medical advances achieved from the use of stem cells that were developed before this administration called them "life"?
Do you think the administration should fund funerals for the discarded blastocysts? Should they be held at all? No? Why not? OK then.
2006-07-20 17:48:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Electing not do use the product of stem cells is up to the parent(s) ---is this different from abortion --- slightly because most abortions are done because the child isn't wanted ---- I have been in the health care field for more than 10 years --- and the girls I knew who had abortions did it because: the father was unknown, they didn't want a baby yet or they used drugs....I only know of one done because of rape/incest.
2006-07-20 17:54:21 · answer #9 · answered by jaimestar64cross 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Adult stem cells can be used to produce some of the results people are looking for.
Alternatively, we could ask people to donate the umblical cords of their new-born babies for such research. If all of us (all of our society) were to do this there would be no shortage of stem cell lineages for research.
We do not necessarily have to descend into killing babies (if a fetus is a baby) in order to make ourselves live healthier lives.
You dont kill one baby (assuming a fetus is a baby), harvest its cells, and use those cells to save the life of another baby.
Cordially,
John
2006-07-20 17:45:28 · answer #10 · answered by John 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋