How can one be against stem cell research and for the death penalty?

Question

Is that not a great contradiction?

Did anyone actually pay attention in science class? Is there no difference between potential and actual life? How long before we can rid ourselves of all these ignorant people that stand in the way of longer, happier, healthier lives for everyone else?

By the by, the cells are actually harvested before the fetus has brain waves. Brain waves are essesntially what give us "life." Problem with this as well?

Oh and isn't it part of the christian religion not to judge or cast the first stone or however you guys put it? How do you dance around that one?

Actually science(not to mention common sense) has answered the question of the comparison between potential and actual life. Since when does a potentiality pull rank over an actual? Is that really a philosophical matter? Your argument is a mere step from me being a murderer when I plunge millions of potential lives onto my shower floor after yanking my rod.

Sure, a tree is alive....but entire forest are chopped down to ensure us warmth. Grapes are alive, but did your God not put them here to give you substenance? A conviction as strong as death? Get real. You are standing in the way of true progress, not to reach heaven...but to have perfection. Was it not God who gave us these capabilities to prolong our lives?

Just as alive as single celled organisms.....hmmm... I wonder what my 'dead' sperm are composed of? Not cells I guess......and no potential of growth? I happen to know my testicles a lot better than most women(can not speak for you mother however) and my sperm, which are made there, in my nuts, have to grow at some point.

Do you really like to come back to a question you've answered and read it again. Are you that interested in what I have to say? I'm flattered, really, but must you say the same things over and over. Say what you mean. You hate actual human beings and love potential human beings. It's cool, no one will be so cruel to judge you....well, maybe the christians but it seems for the most part they agree.

Answer 1

werd n,
The "problem" with your approach to your "question" is you asked a great question, then you allowed your obvious bias against Christians to turn your comments into juvenile pontification.
It's the same "problem" to which so many fall victim. I call it the "Fox News Syndrome." If you examine what you've said in response to Dane 62, you'll see that your "argument" is almost valid, but you cheapened it's value with superfluous and snide remarks.
If you really want to engage in a conversation that you think could possibly encourage people to support the use of fetal stem cells, then ask your question and argue your point. Stick to the issue and don't succumb to common name-calling and oblique stereotyping.
Christians are not what Fox News or the "scientific community" claims we are and all of us do not agree on every issue. Stop using crass generalizations and all-inclusive sweeping remarks that only allude to your original point but are obvious to anyone paying attention.

Answer 2

First of all there are other sources of stem cells other then fetuses, although some believe the stem cells from fetuses are more useful in research we really don't know yet.

Secondly the study of Science says nothing about a philosophical question like whether or not potential life is worth the same as actual life, it also doesn't really say for sure when life begins.

These are philosophical questions not scientific ones. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are ignorant. Someone who thinks that people who don't agree with them are automatically ignorant meets the definition of a bigot.

I believe once all of the necessary genetic code is together you have human life.

What makes stem cell research, or the termination of fetus different from the death penalty is the person being killed by the death penalty knowingly did something that harmed another person and was aware the consequence is caught may be death.

A fetus has done nothing to deserve it's chance of a full life to be taken away but been fertilized at the wrong place time.

Response to your comments:

Is a tree alive? it doesn't have brain waves does it? Yes a basic characteristic of a human is that it has brain waves, but a basic characteristic of a human is also that it can walk on two legs? Should we say one isn't a human till it can walk on two legs?

As far your comment about Christians, just because I think something should be against the law doesn't mean I'm personally judging someone who does it. The bible clearly encourages convictions it just says we shouldn't think we are better then someone else just because they do something we think is wrong.


Response to your additional comments
Life - The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

by this definition sperm is not living because it cannot grow. How a fetus can grow, reproduce, metabolize and even respond to stimuli such as hormones.

So this is why masturbating is not mass murder but terminating the development of a fetus is murder.

You have to draw the line somewhere why not draw it conception? Why draw it at brain waves? fertilized egg is just as a live as any other single celled organism and you might as well classify it as human consider it is genetically identical to humans and no other life form.

Another addition

Beyond the question of morality the issue of stem research is severely misunderstood. The controversy is not about legalizing it. IT IS LEAGEL it's only about whether the government should fund it and how much. Bush's position was to limit it to an existing supply of fetuses.

The concern is that it will be used to encourage people abort when they might not have other wise. Or eggs might be intentionally fertilized for the process. Some feel at the least the government shouldn't fund these practices. There's private money available to do this sort of research.


Another response to your most recent comments:

Yes we do chop down forests, but even aside from Christianity, with only rare exceptions common morality says there's is nothing wrong with terminating the life of a tree if it's for a reasonable use.

However Festus, once determined it is alive, can only be described as a human. It's genetically identical to adult humans and will grow to be one if left in the proper environment. A baby barely resembles the appearance, behavior or functionality of an adult human yet no one questions it's right to live and it would be considered murder if those responsible for it didn't not give it what it's needs to grow and become and adult human.

If a fetus is alive and it is human general morality says it's wrong to kill humans so then it's wrong to kill fetuses.



Response to your comments:

Sperms do not reproduce themselves your body, as part of it's reproduction process produces them. Also sperms cannot grow in size they are singled proteins with only half the necessary genetic code to be alive. Until they fertilize an egg they remain a single cell.

Fetuses grow through mitosis they make more cells and become large, more baby like, fetus.


I was enjoying a rational discussion of ideas with someone who doesn't agree with me. It seems you've given up. If you have another counter point I'd love to read it. You can e-mail me though.

Answer 3

thrilling question - you also see the alternative question a lot on Y!A - "How can human beings be professional-selection yet anti-lack of existence penalty?" yet in case you imagine about it, it truly is in straightforward words hypocritical if you're professional-existence and professional-lack of existence penalty, no longer any opposite direction round. the following is why: because the abortion situation many times comes all the way down to the position one BELIEVES that existence starts, professional-choicers do no longer believe that abortion contains killing (no matter if you imagine that concept is nice is a separate count number). besides the undeniable fact that, maximum professional-existence/professional-lack of existence penalty human beings believe that abortion contains killing an probability free man or woman, at the same time as the shortcoming of existence penalty contains killing in straightforward words those who “deserve it.” The idea of no matter if anybody “advantages” to be killed is one worth of dialogue, yet for the sake of argument, let’s say that some do deserve it. The hypocrisy comes into play once you introduce the very actual and ongoing difficulty of wrongful convictions. contained in the finest 35 years contained in the U.S., 130 human beings were released from lack of existence row because they were exonerated with the help of DNA info. those are all those who were found accountable “previous a real looking doubt.” regrettably, DNA info isn't available more effective regularly than not. So, so long because the shortcoming of existence penalty is in position, you're particularly a lot certain to regularly execute an probability free man or woman. hence, in case you're saying you're hostile to killing probability free human beings, you're able to unavoidably be hostile to the shortcoming of existence penalty, in the different case you're a hypocrite.

Answer 4

Actually not.

The idea is that babies are "innocent" whereas those who deserve the death penalty are "guilty" murderers/ serial rapists etc.

By the way, I am for the death penalty (for first-degree murder and for serial rapists).

I am for adult stem-cell research.

I am for fetal stem-cell research when the cells are harvested from the umblical cord of a new-born baby.

However I am not for the killing of fetuses in order to harvest stem-cells. I would rather avoid the danger of killing innocent life.

Cordially,
John

Answer 5

The death penalty is only given for terrible crimes against man, the fertilized egg has a spirit and if allowed to will become an innocent baby.

Answer 6

I agree. It's so wrong. And to be against abortion when the mother's life is in jeopardy... so a foetus is more worthwhile than an actual human? A bunch of hypocrisy right there.

Answer 7

here's part of the stem cell issue that a lot of peopel ignore or just don't know. scientists wanted to retrieve stem cells from "discarded" fetuses, or babies that were aborted. they're already dead, so is it murder if you take cells from a dead person in order to find a cure for diseases that kill thousands and to help form organs that can save lives?

Answer 8

k i will break it down to you pay attention.
babies are innocent life. they don't know it when they mess up. when they grow up and mess up PURPOSEFULLY, then they have the potential to get locked up and ARRESTED.
and when they get arrested, they know they have the potential for the death penalty. that's how it works. they arent 'innocent' anymore

Answer 9

Ditto John....well said.

Answer 10

that is actually a requirement to get a driver's license in texas........