Conservatives, would you sign this agreement?

Question

I respect your opinion if you are against stem-cell research. I may not understand it, but I do respect it. However, I do have a question. If you are against stem-cell research, would you sign this agreement if it was placed in front of you? Don't read into the wording too much, but just experiment with the general idea. Please explain why you would sign this agreement or why not. I'm not trying to insult you guys, I'm just curious.

I, ____________ (your name) hereby promise to forfeit any rights to partake of any medical treatments, cures or therapies that are developed using embrionic parts from an aborted or naturally dead fetus in the event I have or develop a disease. I also forfeit my childrens' right to partake of the same medical treatments, cures or therapies if they develop any diseases.
x_______________ (your signature)

So, would you sign this? I just have the feeling that most conservatives would be first in line for these treatments despite their morality preaching.

I love how all the Religious Right can do is call me an 'idiot'. I almost feel bad for pitying them.

Answer 1

You've gotta love David C's answer, point "3. You are an idiot". And you sir david c, I believe are the ultimate answer to biology research? Europe over the last couple days has signed a bill to allow more "federal" (yes the EU is a federation) funding for embryonic stem cell research. Sowing the seeds of its own downfall is America.

I am far from conservative, however speaking on behalf of one conservative friend of mine, I have to say not all conservatives agree with the fundamentalist view point. This fellow I know is a republican and pretty conservative on almost every issue but he thinks that embryonic stem cell research should be funded and encouraged.

BTW, mr research analyst david c, in case you weren't aware of, embryonic stem cells are more versatile since they are in an "unassigned" state of development and hence offer more potential than adult stem cells which have already been "assigned" to a certain body function. That is the whole difference between adult and embryonic stem cells. I thought you might have missed that part in your research and analysis.

quote from wikipedia:
"Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they are able to differentiate into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm. In other words, they can develop into each of the more than 200 cell types of the adult body when given sufficient and necessary stimulation for a specific cell type. When given no stimuli for differentiation, ESCs will continue to divide in vitro and each daughter cell will remain pluripotent. The pluripotency of ESCs distinguishes them from adult stem cells or progenitor cells, the latter two only having the capacity to form a more limited number of different cell types."

Answer 2

First of all, since I'm a conservative and you addressed the question to conservatives, I qualify to answer the question. Some of the other "conservatives" sound like they may have the devil in them. I shall pray for them. ( Just kidding) :)

Being a person that tries to keep my word, I definitely wouldn't sign it without reading the wording very carefully. So I'd have to discount your advice to just consider "the general idea."

After reading it, I think I would not sign it. Here's why. (Don't I follow directions just so well?)
First, I see nothing wrong with using any naturally dead human cadaver (man, woman, child, or fetus) for medical research, as long as the person or their parents have consented to it before hand. Just for that, I would not sign it. But I don't think that addresses the point of your question so I'll continue.

After a technology is available, how it came into being is usually no longer relevant. An analogy:
-During WWII the Germans did cruel and often lethal medical experiments on Jews. I think almost everyone agrees that this is wrong. Whether or not they made any medical discoveries, I don't know. But for the sake of the analogy let's say they developed vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella and tetanus. Would you sign a document saying you won't get these shots for yourself or your children? I don't think you would and neither would I. That doesn't mean we condone experimenting on full grown human beings. Once the wrong has been done, we may as well take advantage of the discoveries since there is no way to correct the wrong. At least there would be some good coming from those people's suffering.
I think you can imagine another scenario with an animal rights activist and treatments developed by experimenting on animals.

If your talking about killing a fetus to make a treatment just for me (where one or more had to be killed for each treatment), I would not accept that treatment, although I may have a very strong desire to try to figure out why it would be okay to do so.
Isn't that what we humans generally try to do? We generally don't figure out what's right and wrong first and make a decision based on principle. We decide what we want (what benefits us) first and then try to rationalize it.

Having said all this, I don't think the stem cell research debate is as black and white as abortion. Abortion is clearly wrong (which I won't get into,but you can read some of my other answers if your interested....or not!).
With stem cell research we're talking about frozen embryos that will often be discarded anyway. While I still see those as human lives (the beginning, how we all started out....though most of us not cryogenically frozen for 30 frickin' years, thank you very much), since they are destined to trashed, I can see both sides of the debate. On one hand, why not use them? On the other hand, if that is a human life, in whatever stage or condition, do we really want to go there.....to what may be a slippery slope at best? Maybe we can find another way.
I could go on......thanks for the question. It was thought provoking.

Answer 3

Yes, I would definitely sign it! It's a pretty simple decision too. Clearly put, it is NEVER acceptable to kill one person (the fetus, already a person) to save another (you or me). That's like saying that just because you are bigger or more intelligent (at the time) than this fetus, you have more right to live than it.

Any Christian/Conservative who takes the bible seriously would have no problem making this decision either. Even if they were to die, most Christians don't fear death, since they know where they're going afterwards. It's quite similar to the abortion argument in our eyes.

There are certainly some conservatives out there who are quite hypocritical, and would line up for this treatment even after fighting against it. It is unfortunate that there are people out there who say one thing and do another, and I hope that those people don't overshadow the Conservatives out their who have virtues and stand by them such as myself.

In fact, there are alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. These stem cells are simply the easiest to obtain, however adults have cells in certain locations of their body that can be extracted and used for the same thing. They're harder to get, but no one dies because of it, so I would recieve this treatment, if I could be assured that no fetus had died to make my treatment possible.

Most (maybe all) left wing liberals such as yourself feel differently about this, and it is quite understandable. You don't hold the bible in the same regard that conservatives do, and that significantly impacts your perception of what an embryo is. That's no one's fault, and if you choose to beleive that a fetus is just a fetus, that's entirely your decision, and I don't judge you for it.

I just hope you can overlook the Conservatives there are out there who are hypocrites, because I know they do exist. I think it's a form of stereotyping when society assumes that most conservatives are hypocrites as you described in your question. I view it much the same way as an honest, law abiding African-American might view another member of his race who commits crime and portrays that inaccurate image of their culture.

Answer 4

That is a tough decision. I am pretty sure that I would say no but I can not say 100 percent. I would rather have a cure that was found from other stem cells besides embryonic. Good thing no cures for deceases have come from embryonic stem cell research.

Answer 5

Let's forget about the morality issue for a moment. First of all, usage of infant stem cells is unproven at best. Second, why should the government fund the research? I thought Democrats were against corporate welfare. Let the medical industry fund its own research.

Answer 6

I would sign in a minute! You obviously don't know the full context of the issue at hand, in that you don't know : 1. research indicates cord blood is MORE beneficial in experimental trials, and contains MORE stem cells than embryonic cells. 2. Embryonic cells have thus far had a SMALL percentage of success, and mutations causing cancer are predominate. 3. You're an idiot.

Answer 7

Given that it's the contention of many stem-cell research opponents that presently available stem cell "lines" are sufficient, I don't see why a person could sign that agreement and still avail themselves of treatments derived. from stem-cell research in good conscious.

Regardless of that argument, any stem-cell research opponents who did avail themselves of treatments derived from stem-cell research are in no worse ethical position than people who oppose animal testing yet avail themselves of treatments tested on animals(which would be just about every treatment there is). I don't begrudge PETA members their medicine so I can't object to stem-cell research opponents getting treatment either.

Answer 8

I would sign it in a heartbeat, most progress has been made with non embryonic stem cells. I fear the day aborted fetal cells show promise because that is the day Liberals find a way to start farming.

Answer 9

I wouldn't sign it. Adult stem cells have saved people I have known, I will take my chances with them. Taking a living human cell from anything that would eventually kill the complete being, is not something I want to be part of, Human cells are and only human, no matter in what stage of develpment it is in, and no matter where it is formed.

Answer 10

i am not sure if u understand what u are asking....what u asked ranges a HUGE amount of people...i personally am a christian....
i dont believe in stem cell research and i dont have that oppinion from any preaching on morality....
morality is a universal standard more or less...its a life style....its ur character....its not a sermon