In discussions and debates dealing with stem cell research, I've heard abortion brought up. I don't understand what abortion has to do with stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells are made during the In Veto Fertilization process. They use the strongest to proceed with the process and the rest are destroyed or kept preserved indefinitely. One main debate is to use these for research or not. But the embryonic stem cells are never inside a uterus. The definition of an abortion is the destruction of a fetus inside a uterus. So it seems to me that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to so with abortion, just the destruction of embryos outside of a uterus. Am I missing something?
2006-10-25 04:35:17 · 10 answers · asked by Take it from Toby 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So I guess I was right in my assumption that this issue has nothing to do with abortion. It does destroy a fertilized embryo, which is up for debate on the moral issue of that. I can certainly see why some people would oppose that, but it isn't abortion.
2006-10-25 05:10:09 · update #1
There are those who believe that a fertilized egg is human life. Genetically, all the components are there - unique DNA. In the right environment it will indeed grow into a human being. We all started out that way.
But you are right in implying that opposing stem cell research is not consistent with just destroying fertilized eggs that will not be used. But many opponents of stem-cell research oppose destroying the fertilized eggs as well, or were not aware until recently that in vitro fertilization worked as you described. They will say that experimenting on human life that will be destroyed anyway is unjustified, just as experimentation on death row inmates would be unjustified.
That's the explanation, agree or disagree.
PS to your PS I suppose that technically, embryo-destroying research is not an "abortion" if the embryo is not implanted in a uterus. But that seems to be elevating semantics far above substance. The general issue is the destruction of potential life, in two closely related contexts. Should this question be in Linguistics instead?
2006-10-25 04:37:00 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
OK I have alot to say about this and will put like this
I am firmly pro choice, but I feel that there should be no abortions performed after a certain stage of development. ALso i think those religious anti abortion people are morons because God gave us free will. And it is an individual decision. However I cannot understand how people can appose stemm cell research, yet tri mester abortion is legal. What is up with the world.....War is ok and selling weapons to other countries is ok but stem cell research that would advance our medical knowledge profoundly is a debated issue. Maybe if politicians woried more about reaql problems. Maybe if are education system was better more people would know how to use a condom. Maybe if people actually took the time to research subjects they would know that Abortion and stem cell research are not related at all.
2006-10-26 01:12:54 · answer #2 · answered by myxodo05 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the way I understand it. BTW let me state up front that I am firmly opposed to abortion in any form. In any case, it's a matter of Christian theology. When a sperm enters an egg something miraculous happens - Life! In that first contact, a minute particule of God's essence is promulgated within that cell. A soul is created. It's life and life is a sacred gift. To destroy that life, that soul, is a crime against God. To perform an experiment on that embryo, no matter how small is no different, theologically, than performing an experiment on a living child. This is of course, not a scientific definition since science cannot demonstrate the existence of a soul. And even if science somehow could, it would not care. Think of this. Every fertilized human egg sitting in a freezer somewhere contains a soul. How would you like to be the medical doctor standing before God on the final Day Of Judgement, forced to give an account of your stewardship? Not a happy prospect.
2006-10-25 04:53:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't be such a dick. Mabye peta is against animal testing, but most people would prefer that an animal suffer side affects over a human. Not all liberals are against animal testing, not all are for it. I would like to see it used less frequently, but it has it's uses. As for the abortion thing, clearly it is differing perspective. You seem to think stems cells = killing babies. Stems cells are taken from a blastocyst, which contains 100 or so cells, give or take. From a merely logical point of view, 100 cells is quite a bit smaller than the number of cells in "a monkey or a dog". If you really think that is killing a baby, you need to re-evaluate your perception. Stems cells have value in the fact that they ARE NOT humans - they aren't anything, they are blank slates, which is why they are so useful for spinal cord injuries, organ damage, etc. But apparently that makes me a baby killer. Go figure.
2016-05-22 12:53:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some believe that a fertilized egg is a potential human being and to kill it is abortion or murder, if an abortion has to have the fetus inside the woman. I think that since these fetuses are going to be destroyed anyway, wouldn't using them for stem cell research bring some meaning to their short lives than just throwing them away? I don't think anyone is suggesting that we form fetuses merely to harvest their stem cells. Their short lives could mean a better life for someone else and perhaps even save another's life. Is that a bad thing?
2006-10-25 04:45:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't think so. It's a definition of terms: Conservatives believe that life begins with conception, even if conception is in a test tube. It's a fanatical Christian Taliban idea. Any scientist/researcher knows that a fertilized egg is just a clump of cells, ---a zygote---with the POTENTIAL to become an individual, under some really strict conditions. Those clumps of cells have no feeling, no consciousness, and frankly, no humanity..... You have the POTENTIAL to learn Chinese, too, but it isn't likely. For some reason, these people foist their religious ideas into medicine, and research here in the US. Other nations have no such problem
2006-10-25 05:10:19 · answer #6 · answered by April 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People are misinformed about processes and the origin of human life(when human life begins). Some people are under the impression that the government would be sponsoring abortions. They have just been misled by someone without knowledge. The same old story on a whole new subject.
2006-10-25 04:47:34 · answer #7 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Since even Senate Majority Leader Dr. Frist has spoken out in favor of embryonic stem cell research, I can't quite figure that one out myself. The closest I can figure is that the embryos may, theoretically, become fetuses, even if in practice, they're discarded and destroyed anyway. I agree that this stance held by many conservative politicians is, frankly, baffling.
2006-10-25 04:43:09 · answer #8 · answered by Ivallinen Roisto 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Becuase the majority of the stem cells they are seeking to use are obtained from killed babies.
2006-10-25 04:37:48 · answer #9 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because we like to mislead and confuse feable minds
2006-10-25 04:37:33 · answer #10 · answered by Cheryl 2 · 1⤊ 5⤋