Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

Personally, I think those that have HIV should not have had free sex in the first place. If people would just control themselves more, HIV would be a speck compared to other diseases. I refuse to kill just so someone doesn't have to face the consequences of the actions.

Some are born with HIV/AIDs. Some given it when donated blood fails to be tested (I knew someone's who uncle died from that). Condoms break and I believe are only 98% affective.

Originally Posted by DarKnite'92

Some are born with HIV/AIDs. Some given it when donated blood fails to be tested (I knew someone's who uncle died from that). Condoms break and I believe are only 98% affective.

I do feel sorry for those that get HIV without having sex, but again if people would just keep their clothes on it wouldn't be a problem.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

All human life is sacred, and all are worthy to live.

All have fallen short of the glory of God and deserve DEATH, they are not worthy of LIFE.

No it is not. The soldier is giving his life willfully for his buddies. Is the baby willfully giving his life? Can we even ask him?

Would a soldier say "no"? And it is not a baby, merely an embryo.

Emphasis on "sometimes"!

Like, for instance, when humanity as a whole would benefit from it, instead of when an embryo would die needlessly because someone made a stupid choice?

They were killed for the purpose of experimentation. They wouldn't have been killed if they were never going to do the experiments in the first place. In fact, they never would have been conceived in the first place.

No, if you read back to what I quoted it was referring to those used after an abortion. Those abortions were the product of a parent's consent, not a scientist's decision. What you're referring to is pregnancy for the purpose of scientific experimentation, I wasn't.

Originally Posted by Honor

All have fallen short of the glory of God and deserve DEATH, they are not worthy of LIFE.

That's true, but because of God's mercy the human race didn't stop at Adam and Eve. God still commands that life be sacred. Besides, if life really wasn't so valuable, why bother with stem cell research in the first place, or any medical research for that matter?

Originally Posted by Honor

Would a soldier say "no"?

He would if he was scared stiff. Watch a good movie like Saving Private Ryan. Notice those paralyzed in fear. Do you think that they would give their lives? Some soldiers would quicker let them selves be killed so that they would be out of the battle than give their lives.

Originally Posted by Honor

And it is not a baby, merely an embryo.

Wrong! A person is a person whether he is a shapeless form of cells, a infant, a full grown man, or a elder.

If an embryo is not as important, where do we cross the line? Does a person have a right to live when he's born? When he starts school? When he's an adult? What about the elderly and the disabled? Should we kill them because they are just drain on society?

I'm so glad my parents didn't decide I was "merely an embryo." Thank you Mom and Dad for letting me live!

Originally Posted by Honor

Like, for instance, when humanity as a whole would benefit from it, instead of when an embryo would die needlessly because someone made a stupid choice?

Humanity may benefit from this research, but many humans would have to die to make it happen. How would you feel if scientists demanded 1,000 5-year-olds so they could do experiments on them, most of which fatal, just so society would benefit?

Originally Posted by Honor

No, if you read back to what I quoted it was referring to those used after an abortion. Those abortions were the product of a parent's consent, not a scientist's decision. What you're referring to is pregnancy for the purpose of scientific experimentation, I wasn't.

Most embryos here are created in a lab, not in the wombs of women. Even then, abortion itself is wrong. This leads back to that whole issue of people keeping their clothes on.

Lastly, how soon does it take for a embryo to grow past the stage of being usable? It seems to me that a mother would not even have the time to realize she was pregnant and have an abortion before the embryo had grown past that stage.

That's true, but because of God's mercy the human race didn't stop at Adam and Eve. God still commands that life be sacred. Besides, if life really wasn't so valuable, why bother with stem cell research in the first place, or any medical research for that matter?

Perhaps, perhaps, but did it ever occur to you that this is protecting life more than taking it? The policy of taking one life to save many others is quite popular.

He would if he was scared stiff. Watch a good movie like Saving Private Ryan. Notice those paralyzed in fear. Do you think that they would give their lives? Some soldiers would quicker let them selves be killed so that they would be out of the battle than give their lives.

You depend on Hollywood for what you know about soldiers? Well, you may as well do that if you like, but I know people in the armed forces. I know how a soldier is supposed, and usually does, act under pressure and amid fear, even terror. They work harder and better. I know people that have stories about times in the field where they see this happen. So don't tell me that crock.

Wrong! A person is a person whether he is a shapeless form of cells, a infant, a full grown man, or a elder.

I'll think about your point when you point that out in the Bible.

Humanity may benefit from this research, but many humans would have to die to make it happen. How would you feel if scientists demanded 1,000 5-year-olds so they could do experiments on them, most of which fatal, just so society would benefit?

Ebryos aren't humans yet, and that is a scientific fact that can't be disputed just by belief.

Most embryos here are created in a lab, not in the wombs of women. Even then, abortion itself is wrong. This leads back to that whole issue of people keeping their clothes on.

We can agree on that. But if they're made in a lab, technically they aren't human are they? They're made by man, not by God, and therefore loose their holiness? No, that's not true. If they became children, it would, but not as embryos.

I can't answer your last question, I'm not an expert on the subject of abortions.

Originally Posted by Honor

The policy of taking one life to save many others is quite popular.

So is free sex. What of it?

Originally Posted by Honor

You depend on Hollywood for what you know about soldiers? Well, you may as well do that if you like, but I know people in the armed forces. I know how a soldier is supposed, and usually does, act under pressure and amid fear, even terror. They work harder and better. I know people that have stories about times in the field where they see this happen. So don't tell me that crock.

I was using the movie as an example. My own cousin is a soldier and did his share of service in Iraq, and yes, he told me of his experiences there.

However, I have heard real stories of soldiers that pretty much match my example.

Originally Posted by Honor

I'll think about your point when you point that out in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't say "You shall not murder embryos," or "You shall not murder an elder," just "You shall not murder." The law is universal. The Hebrews understood that a murder of a woman with child was double murder. It's interesting to note that that is still in effect today. A woman can have an abortion with no problem, but if someone kills the woman before she has an abortion, he is convicted of double homicide.

Originally Posted by Honor

Ebryos aren't humans yet, and that is a scientific fact that can't be disputed just by belief.

A fact, huh? Mind giving some proof?

Originally Posted by Honor

We can agree on that. But if they're made in a lab, technically they aren't human are they? They're made by man, not by God, and therefore loose their holiness? No, that's not true. If they became children, it would, but not as embryos.

It doesn't matter where they were concieved. Human life is human life.

Originally Posted by Honor

I can't answer your last question, I'm not an expert on the subject of abortions.

Within three or four weeks the embyro starts to take a shape. I'm pretty sure that by that time the embyro cannot be used for ESC reaserch.

So is free sex. What of it?

To each his own opinion. Some people's opinion doesn't include free sex as a bad thing. The laws of the Bible govern Christians, not their countries as a whole, and therefore they cannot imposetheir laws on others. In fact, the law of the Bible says to obey those in authority over you. If Clinton had passed this stem cell bill, would you argue against it still?

However, I have heard real stories of soldiers that pretty much match my example.

I haven't.

The Bible doesn't say "You shall not murder embryos," or "You shall not murder an elder," just "You shall not murder." The law is universal. The Hebrews understood that a murder of a woman with child was double murder. It's interesting to note that that is still in effect today. A woman can have an abortion with no problem, but if someone kills the woman before she has an abortion, he is convicted of double homicide.

The Bible doesn't say you shall not murder. It says not to kill, period. Embryos have none of the symbolisms of humanity except the ability to grow, which they conveniently share with animals and trees. Therefore, they are not yet human. What the Hebrews thought makes little difference in the light of truth.

A fact, huh? Mind giving some proof?

If a tree isn't a human, neither can an embryo be. An embryo cannot think, speak, move, even smell or eat. All life in an embryo depends on the care of its mother/creator. Plain logic prevails.

It doesn't matter where they were concieved. Human life is human life.

How is it human life, may I ask?

Within three or four weeks the embyro starts to take a shape. I'm pretty sure that by that time the embyro cannot be used for ESC reaserch.

You've said yourself that an embryo doesn't begin forming into a human until the third week at least.

Originally Posted by Honor

To each his own opinion. Some people's opinion doesn't include free sex as a bad thing. The laws of the Bible govern Christians, not their countries as a whole, and therefore they cannot imposetheir laws on others. In fact, the law of the Bible says to obey those in authority over you. If Clinton had passed this stem cell bill, would you argue against it still?

This assumes that they are a rightful authority. Those who command things which are beyond their authority are not to be obeyed. St. Augustine brought up the principle that, 'an unjust law' is no law, and St. Thomas Aquinas further developed the point noting that an unjust law is merely a species of force.

From the Bible, since I assume you will want that example, I would offer St. Paul's actions. You know well that he was imprisoned for preaching the gospel. What he did was against the law, and yet he nonetheless persisted in it because the authorities had no actual right to command him to do as such.

Christians have long understood that they are to disobey certain laws when necessary. For instance, laws which criminalize the practice of Christianity. Normatively, it is sinful for a Christian to disobey legitimate authority, but that is normatively.

The Bible doesn't say you shall not murder. It says not to kill, period.

How does this help your argument? If we are not to kill, period, then we are not to kill anything, whether it be bird or beast, human or plant. All of those live, and as such, are we not to kill any of those?

Rather, I believe he refers to the Hebrew text of commandment which carries with it the connotation of murder. We both recognize that it applies to human beings, and not to anything else.

Embryos have none of the symbolisms of humanity except the ability to grow, which they conveniently share with animals and trees. Therefore, they are not yet human. What the Hebrews thought makes little difference in the light of truth.

What makes a human?

You must be able to tell me first, what makes a human, before you can tell me that an embryo shares nothing with a human. In the first, you are wrong there, for an embryo has human genetic code, just as all human beings do.

However, for the Christian, the essential question to humanity is, does it have a soul? Christianity has long recognized that a human is composite of soul and body. Hence, if an embryo has a soul, it is a human being. The issue of ensoulment, therefore, is going to be crucial.

Orthodox christianity has long recognized the point of conception as a point of ensoulment, and as such, has been opposed to abortion (note that I far simplify the issue here for the sake of brevity).

If a tree isn't a human, neither can an embryo be. An embryo cannot think, speak, move, even smell or eat. All life in an embryo depends on the care of its mother/creator. Plain logic prevails.

This assumes the essence of being human is to think, speak, move, smell or eat. Clearly being human has nothing to do with the ability to sense, for someone under anaesthetic cannot sense. And clearly thinking has nothing to do with being human, for there are times when human beings do not think (witness the Serious Business boards for evidence). What is the essence of being human? I answer again, a material body and an immaterial soul. An embryo fulfills these requirements.

You've said yourself that an embryo doesn't begin forming into a human until the third week at least.

If this is the view, then it is always 'forming into' a human becauase that is the potential that all embryos constantly seek (I use the word 'seek' loosely) to become. However, it has not been established that a certain shape is the necessary essence of what it is to be human. Perhaps after several weeks an embryo starts to look like a human being as it is born, but that is appearance, and we wish to penetrate deeper than appearance into reality.

-Rob

Since there have been a number of posts since I was last here and I don't feel like going through them, here's a summary of my argument.

The only embryos used (previously) were ones that would be killed anyways.
Now it is possible to extract stem cells without killing the embryo.
Embryonic stem cells can save hundreds of thousands of lives, something that no other kind of stem cell can do.

Where is the problem, here? I get the distinct impression that the only problem people have with it is the name, if the process had been renamed to super stem cell extraction, or something similar then this wouldn't be an issue.

Originally Posted by Honor

How is it human life, may I ask?

Its human and its alive.

The real question here is weather or not it is a person.

Originally Posted by Honor

Ebryos aren't humans yet, and that is a scientific fact that can't be disputed just by belief.

Yeah, they are. They're are human when a zygote. They aren't comepletly formed. I can get some photos if you want. The only difference is that they are dependant on their mother.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

Its human and its alive.

The real question here is weather or not it is a person.

You didn't answer my question.

Yeah, they are. They're are human when a zygote. They aren't comepletly formed. I can get some photos if you want. The only difference is that they are dependant on their mother.

http://actin-ends.scripps.edu/ebryoJ.jpg

That picture is an embryo. It has no brain, while a human being does. Conclusion? Pictures do speak louder than words, I'm afraid, but that one speaks for me.