Honest question about the politics of stem cell research?

Question

First off, let me just say I am neither party-affiliated nor a left/right wing nut. I have observed that the liberal philosophy seems to be the process of extending rights and protections to people (and animals) on the basis of morality. It is immoral to discriminate against race or sexuality. It is also immoral, some say, to eat meat. There are also protections in place for the environment at large. There are laws protecting the air and the soil. Most of this work has been done by liberals, and I applaud this.

Why is it considered backward or unscientific to wish to protect the rights of the unborn?

I understand there is some controversy over where life begins and ends, that's not the point. But since there are already laws on the books protecting a child in the third trimester, it is not strictly a privacy issue.

On the surface it would seem to be a "liberal" issue, but it is not. Why are the unborn seen as less worthy of protection than our dirt?

That was not intended as a sarcastic jab. I apologize if it came off sounding that way.

I ask it in all seriousness; if we can protect the lives of all people, animals, and even the soil bacteria, why can we not also try to protect the life of the unborn child?

It would seem liberals ARE pro-life on almost all issues. Why not this one?

Serious replies only, and please, no partisan attacks against each other.

Let's be mature.

Kervorkian:

This is not intended to belittle your response, but frozen embryos have been used to create vital, intelligent human beings. So your response is technically erroneous. They CAN in fact be born.

But I thank you for not being rude like some of the responders.

RE: Global warming is REAL

In case it isn't clear, embryonic stem cell research is what is being discussed.

I never once mentioned abortion.

Barb- I am a Deist.

I have no dogma, no holy book, and my opinions are my own construction based upon my observations of the world.

I also find it interesting that any opposing opinion is painted as dogma that is being "pawned" off on other people, yet you freely offer your own opinions and accept them as fact in spite of your own conclusion that "no one knows where life begins".

Therefore, your own viewpoint is based on opinion, not fact. Perhaps you have your own kind of political rather than religious dogma that you are pawning off on me.

It is presumptuous to assume that your opinions are superior simply because you aren't a religious person. That implies you have never had a biased thought or an illogical conclusion.

Diana- Good answer. I'm not saying I agree. But it was thoughtful and articulate.

The problem as I see it is that we are discriminating between an embryo in the womb and an embryo outside of the womb, and defining life by it's viability.

Both embryos are the potential for fully formed human life, and are individual human life forms by scientific definition.

How viable are we? We need the womb of the Earth to keep us alive. If we were blown out an airlock into space, we would not survive. So, too, do the unborn not survive outside of the womb, but that does not by definition mean they are not alive.

This is both a scientific and philosophical argument, and it is meant to be rigorous. Perhaps the comparison to being blown into space is merely meant as a thought experiment, but if we are to define human life, we had better have a VERY thorough set of reasoning behind it.

Literally, lives depend on it. We should ALWAYS challenge our assumptions.

Answer 1

What many do not understand is that stem cells do not come from harvesting fetuses. A cell is completely useless at the stage of development when specific tissues Begin to form (which is quite early on)
The majority of embryonic stem cells are derived from laboratory creation, whether this be donor embryos (left over from IVF treatments) or cloned embryos from existing cell lines.

Stem cells can also be found in cord blood as well in low concentrations in amniotic fluid. It is a misconception that the unborn are being protected by bocking stem cell research. The fact of the matter is the unborn are not even effected. By the time a women even discovered a pregnancy she is almost always beyond the embryonic phase.

Think about it this way. And I pose a question. Birth control pills. I am willing to bet there are many people both pro life and por choice out there that take them. Is this considered an abonination? Many birth control pills block the implantation of a fertalized ovum.

Stem cells show great promise as a treatement and prevention for catotrophic disease. Embryonic stem cells are derived from embroys that were cooked up in a laboratory and not intended to come to fruition. That along with the fact that not all stem cells are derived from a viable embryo, makes me think this entire protect the unborn stance is increadibly misguided.

ABORTION has nothing to do with stem cells. An aborted fetus cannot be used for stem cells.

Answer 2

"Protecting" the unborn is an unrealistic argument when applied to stem cell research. When life begins is a question that has never been answered because nobody knows.

The religious right says it is at conception, others say it is when the baby is viable and can survive outside the womb...others say when the fetus moves independently in the mothers womb. Nobody knows.

There are millions and millions of fertilized eggs frozen in fertility clinics and hospitals around the world. Couples who go to fertility clinics have dozens of them frozen. Once they have one or two live births, the rest of these fertilized eggs are destroyed. What is wrong with using them for research. Why is that any different than destroying them. Many couples designate their excess eggs to research hospitals rather than have them destroyed.

We must simply back off from the pseudo-religious idea that a fertilized egg is a fully formed person....it just isn't so. Forget the "soul" or the "spirit" - those are religious concepts and have no place in law making or regulation public policy.

If you think life begins at conception...good for you.... That is YOUR belief. However, don't expect to pawn off your dogma on the rest of us.

If you really think conception is life....then, why are you ok with several million people being frozen?

Why is it considered backward, et al? Because, science cannot be held up by a handful of religious opinions as to when life begins. Religion has no place in science.

Now, if stem cell research required the killing of children outside the womb or after viability in the womb, that would be different - it would be murder...

And, stem cell research doesn't involve "worthiness" or "unworthiness"... These are NOT people....

Answer 3

I look at it from the vantage point that these frozen embryos are going to be destroyed if not used in research. The right touts as one of its defenses that it is destroying human life. My reply would be, but it is okay to see them destroyed rather than use them for what could be great good? If one follows their line of logic, then the embryos no longer needed should be permanently kept on ice forever, right? If that is the case, it could pose some real storage problems for the clinics, couldn't it? A few cells is not a human, it is the POTENTIAL for a human. The rights of the unborn are protected very well when they are in the womb. When they are in the womb they are viable. Out of the womb, they are not. Use them where they can do great good for the ones who are living.

Answer 4

First you must understand that stem cells come from a frozen blastocyst in fertility clinics.

The doctors performing invitro fertilization create dozens of blastocyst for each couple trying to have children.

Once pregnancy occurs the remainder are thrown away as medical waste.

People that are against embryonic stem cell research seem to believe that somehow an embryo is less dead in a trash can than in a lab.

People trying to ban it are not saving any life, they are just hindering science with a straw man argument.

Banning stem cell research only makes sure that a lab cannot use the "medical waste" from fertility clinics.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Answer 5

im not familiar with the process but i assume the appropriate bodily fluids are donated.i guess i dont have a problem with it if thats how its done.but get private funding i dont want to pay for something like that.i think some people get the impression that this embroy created by two people havin a good time then desiding to destroy it and the doctors and scientists are just sitting and waiting like ambulance chasing lawyers.it paints an ugly picture.sounds like people are associating this with abortion.i dont know if it is,i dont know enough about it.things like this make me wonder about peoples mind set.we bend over backward to make sure pedifiles get due process,and mass murderers get proper meranda rights.but we will terminate a potential human life because we simply cant be burdened with it.i would put my money on saving the kids that havent done anything but been created, rather than wasting it on someone who repeatedly proves they are useless humans.

Answer 6

Stem cells can be harvested without killing embryos. It is widely regarded within the scientific community that stem research is an important field to study, given the human cell regeneration potential.

There are ways to do it without extracting it from an embryo: via apheresis, also, they can be harvested from a placenta immediately after childbirth.

All of this is part of stem research, not the widely-acclaimed witch hunt that is killing babies.

These wikipedia references have been well noted.

Answer 7

Tough question. The liberals want to see cures of all sorts that could possibly happen through stem cell research. Most of your Hollywood crowd and a lot of elite are pushing the issue. That is a lot of the liberal voting and money base. So therefore liberal candidates have to be on the elites side. It is extremely political. Doing the moral thing does not win the hearts and souls of their contributors.

Answer 8

It is a wedge issue used by democrats to raise money. They scare women into thinking they will have to get abortions in alleys. They say that if only they are elected cures for diseases will be forthcoming and Republicans want to deny them cure. Some even take it to the point where they think a healthy baby being born can have its brain sucked out to kill it and call that a choice. To allow that kind of abomination indicates how much the radical left really cares about life.

Answer 9

Because these cells are essentially from embryos that were unsuccessfully used in fertility treatments. They are basically thrown in the garbage dump after being used anyways. Instead, they could potentially be used for life-saving treatments instead of dumped in the trash. It is MORE pro-life to be for stem-cell research in my opinion.

Answer 10

Liberals simply CANNOT give a single nanometer when it comes to things that might udercut their precious abortion "rights." To admit that using human embryos as lab rats is wrong would be admitting that there is some intrinsic value to human embryos and that they aren't merely "balls of cells."

This severely undercuts their entire BILLION DOLLAR abortion industry.