Why should Bush veto Stem Cell research bills?
Stem cell research… this could cause Bush to use his veto power for the first time. What is the big deal with stem cell research? They would use fetuses that would otherwise be disposed. I’ll tell you exactly what’s wrong with it. First of all, they haven’t found ANY cures with the existing lines. This perception that stem cells can fix anything is nothing but a pipe dream. More importantly, what happens if we do find a cure with baby stem cells? How could we possibly get enough stem cells to distribute the cure? This would lead to harvesting of fetuses. This would be one of the most murderous, immoral things to ever happen on this earth. Scientists would have to take the life of one person to improve the life of another. I can think of few things more self-centered and immoral.
Comments
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 10:26 AM
21 lines are the ones left available to federal researchers but are mostly old and contaminated.
US researchers are flocking to Europe and Singapore to join biotechnology efforts there, should we go and arrest them?
Adult stem cells are improving, but cannot be harvested that quickly either. Fed funds are not enough to push for more breakthroughs.
Joint research on embryonic and adult stem cells must be done to optimise research production.
Also, this can be done along ethical lines, but Bush refuses to even consider increased federal funding.
Yep, it's formidable for Bush to take a strong stance on certain positions, but he makes a mistake on this one.
I wouldn't mind waiting till 2008 for a more moderate President to believe in the society's further good to do this.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 18, 2006 10:33 AM
What do you suggest they do if they find a cure using stem cells from babies? I know! We can have dead baby drives! The Red Cross death for life mobile... drives around getting women to become pregnant and abort so that they can save lives with their stem cells. How do you suggest we obtain these stem cells? Do you want women getting pregnant with the intent of killing their baby in the name of research or possibly cures to diseases further down the road? Doesn't that absolutely disgust you?
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 11:55 AM
Stem cell research has only been going on since 1998. If you look at the timelines that medical trials and successes undergo, you cannot dismiss this research yet. Even drug discovery , trials, and approval can takes years even decades. You cannot use that we have had no successes yet, as an arguement against the process. Talk about circular reasoning.
There has been success in adult cells. Adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 11:55 AM
You are always suggesting that the worst case would happen believing that our scientists are evil and willing to kill millions of babies to do this type of research.
Who knows if a few embryos are sacrificed to save millions of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's patients, and millions of children with diabetes?
It is also possible that whatever medication is created, it can be artificially produced. There are possiblities out there, and we should not placed severe limits. When a breakthrough happens, the govt should then consider additional actions.
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: July 18, 2006 11:59 AM
I recommend people take a look at the Stem Cell Information web site for factual information. It provides the scienitific facts and policies of stem cell research rather than pushing the morbid extremes that have no evidence to suggest such a route.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 18, 2006 12:01 PM
You are still killing a baby to get the initial lines. How can you justify the death of a defenseless baby in the name of science? What happens if we don't find any cures? Then all those babies died in vein. Who are we to chose who is a martyr to the cause of disease cures?
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 12:08 PM
Chad, you do not understand the science. Maybe you should do some research before you make blanket statements about killing infants.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 18, 2006 12:13 PM
Wait... fertilized egg = baby... baby killed... stem cells used for research...
That is a killed baby right there.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 12:29 PM
Chad,
I am not surprised you believe medical science would "harvest" babies or you utter lack of faith in promising avenues related to fetal stem cell research. I mean, you have dismissed evolution and question global warming despite overwhelming consensus in the scientific community supporting these positions. You blindly and regularly dismiss facts that go against your position, often saying something like "apparently you don't know much about x", but never actually backing up what you say. You constantly use loaded words to paint worst case scenarios, usually regurgitated from various conservative websites. Most of the comments and the readership you have are likely due to the misinformation on your blog, some to correct it, others to stare in amazement at the words coming from someone with a college education.
Now, to what you seem to think will happen "if they find a cure using the stem cells of babies." Will babies be killed specifically for this purpose? I think we can safely say that this will not occur, at least in the United States. If you look at similar medical breakthroughs, namely organ transplants, a similar "worst case scenario" has not occurred. One could easily argue that "harvesting" organs through killing people is possible (and even has spurned urban myths). However, this has not occurred in the United States. We are, after all a nation of laws, laws that insure the harvesting of organs does not occur. Similar laws would be set up to guide the use of fetal stem cells, probably based off those rules and regulations related to organ transplants. To hold back scientific progress because of your unfounded, ideologically grounded fears is just plain stupid.
Also, many of the "babies" you are talking about are will NEVER be implanted or grow to maturity. In other words, they are already dying in vein. Wouldn't it be better to utilize their stem cells if there is some possibility (a strong one according to scientists, who know a lot more about these kinds of things than both you or I) of finding a cure to a disease?
Posted by: V
Posted on: July 18, 2006 12:38 PM
If that's true, then we'd have to charge a whole lot of people with manslaughter (or, at least, hold a whole lot of funerals). From a St. Pete Times article:
If each one of those fertilized eggs is a baby, then shouldn't you be mourning the incredible number of dead babies that occur each year?
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 12:40 PM
This is why I get frustrated by the fact that people choose to lay out the "worst-case scenario" in order to frighten the public.
Fortunately, 70% of Americans support increased stem cell research.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 18, 2006 12:52 PM
I believe that it is a baby at the time of conception. That is not something that can be debated with scientific facts or anything. That is just what I believe with my heart to be true.
I would not be against the study of stem cells in miscarriages; however, aborted babies should never be allowed to be studied. You liberals always use the "slippery slope" scenario with religion in public. Well, I find allowing stem cell research of aborted babies to be on a very slippery slope. I feel that it can lead to the harvesting of babies which is absolutely horrific. It is frightening to think about what would happen if they found a cure for a disease like cancer in stem cells. Wouldn't there be a demand for stem cells? Couldn't that lead to stem cell harvesting? You pro-choicers have already convinced yourself that aborted babies aren’t really babies. Why would any of you oppose stem cell harvesting? Harvesting would lead to millions and perhaps even billions of babies being slaughtered defenseless in the womb. That already happens enough to make me ill...
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:18 PM
You are stuck on the extreme cases for sure.
You are ignoring the whole fact that the embryos used in stem cell research would never see a female womb. They could be extras from in vitro fertilization that would be destroyed if never used anyways. They have already be created in a test tube by man and would be destroyed by man after a certain time period when not used. You are stuck on infant harvesting, which I bet very few scientists would even consider.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:21 PM
How is in vitro fertilization any different? You're still killing a conceived baby.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:30 PM
You like to backtrack for sure. You are the one that is so against stem cell research because babies would be plucked from the womb. When people offer alternatives, you change your opinion again. Make up your mind already. If you are so against IVF, why fight from the angle of harvesting from the womb. If you believe conception equals baby and no harm should come from it, base you arguments there and stop using your morbid approach. It makes you look like you do not even know what you believe, nor do you understand the science.
If you are really looking to argue a your points, I recommend you take a class in logic so you actually understand how to create a solid stance to fight from.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:33 PM
You casually mention abortion in one of your comments, but show no distaste for it. Have you really organized your thoughts and beliefs yet?
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:47 PM
who knows... he could well be advocating the right of the US to use military force to stop other countries from continuing stem cell research
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:48 PM
I know exactly what I believe in. I had not thought of IVF. I will admit it. However, I view a fertilized egg as a baby. It doesn't matter where it is.
I find it funny that you libs are resorting to personal attacks on my beliefs when you preach tolerance. You always fight for the minority who is offended except when that minority doesn't fit your liberal agenda. You fight the one person in a crowd of 10000 people who might be offended by the word Jesus. However, you attack the beliefs of someone who stands for protecting lives. It is a double standard.
Ok, so let's assume they are doing IVF. This actually is even worse. They could automate the process leading to a genocide of babies. All they would need is egg donors, sperm donors, and a factory.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:53 PM
LOL. It is always the conservatives v liberals on this. How about people who are in favor in the progress of science?
Quote:
"A century from now people will look back at this debate on stem-cell research and wonder how we could not possibly utilize all of the benefits of science to stop people from dying, to stop people from suffering, when we have these embryos which are either going to be thrown away or used," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said during debate yesterday.
So you are labelling Michael J. Fox, Mary Tyler Moore, and Nancy Reagan as liberals. That's not a personal attack, but an assumption based on your opinions.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:55 PM
Arlen Specter is a Centrist. He is one of the liberal Republicans in the Senate
Posted by:
Posted on: July 18, 2006 01:57 PM
That's why centrists can think rationally and think out a balanced approach to these problems.
We should just ban the Democratic and Republican parties outright.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 18, 2006 02:02 PM
This is not about Republican or Democrat. Why would I stand for something that goes against something that I believe in so strongly? I believe strongly that life begins at the time of conception. Stem cell research is a complete violation of that belief.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 19, 2006 02:21 PM
Out of curiosity - Chad, does this mean you are against IVF since the unused embryos are destroyed? Do you believe the same for animals or do you draw the line on just human embryos?
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 19, 2006 02:33 PM
It is my opinion that they should do IVF so that no babies are killed. In a lot of cases, they put in several eggs into the female to increase the chance of implantation into the uterus. If the body rejects any of those, then that is not anyone's fault. That is just nature.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 19, 2006 02:46 PM
I would say abortion and stem cell research is a higher priority to stop at this point. In both, the intent is to kill a baby.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 19, 2006 02:52 PM
But as a result of IVF procedures, labs destroy unused embryos all the time.
From today's PD:
If you support IVF, how is supporting stem cell research any different?Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 19, 2006 02:59 PM
I don't support it. I am just saying at this time, abortion and the research is a higher priority.
Abortion: because of it is just killing a baby because you don't want it
stem cell research: Can lead to much worse things than IVF alone.
I address these two issues first.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 19, 2006 03:11 PM
How can embryonic stem cell research lead to "worse things?" Please CITE something RATIONAL other than the "embryo factories" you seem to THINK will crop up.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 19, 2006 03:21 PM
If they find a cure using these dead baby cells, more than likely, the cure will require them. How is it not rational that they would harvest babies if they needed them for a cure for cancer? A lot of people are affected by cancer.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 19, 2006 03:25 PM
[block]At the same time, Bush announced he had signed another bill, passed unanimously in the House and Senate, that would pre-emptively ban "fetal farming," the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research.[/blockquote]
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 19, 2006 03:27 PM
I saw that. That is one good safegaurd. However, it does not protect against IVF farming.
Posted by: Toby
Posted on: July 19, 2006 05:11 PM
How about being allowed to bank your childs stem cells, derived from the placenta, when they are born? That would provide them, and even possibly you, the best possible line for their own later needs in life.
Arguing for the continued restriction of funding for stem cell research is a total catch-22. Without additionaly funding, no money will be available to further develop ways to extract stem cells without harming any fetus. The only reason that we even have an ongoing debate centering on pro-life/pro-choice arguments is that the technology for harmless extraction is not sufficiently advanced to consistently produce results.
I think we can all agree that the promises of stem cell research, assuming it is conducted in a morally tenable way, are some of the most exciting science in the world today. Why is it then that funding as a whole for the program is incredibly weak? Why is the best defense against any funding always focused on just one of many potential approaches? Why can't the federal government specifically earmark more funding for the express purpose of improving these harmless methods?
There are lots of different ways to harvest stem cells without destroying, damaging, or otherwise harming a fetus. And a lot better sources of information on what exactly stem cell research involves than the what the 'scientific experts' at the Right to Life website have to say. Instead of complaining about all the babies 'those damn liberals' are killing, why don't you spend as much energy comparing all the facts, and then complaining about how little the Bush administration is doing to develop superior non-destructive technology. When you're eighty years old, suffering from renal failure and colon cancer, you'll probably wish that someone had advocated the research necessary to cure your ailments.
Posted by:
Posted on: July 21, 2006 02:02 PM
Y'know, Chad. The reason IFV clinics fertilize and implant an abundance of eggs is money. Couples can't afford do the procedure multiple time (it's not often covered by insurance). So they shop around for clinics with the greatest success rates. To boost success rates, doctors fertilize and implant more eggs.
Do you want to regulate this form of commerce? ;->
Posted by: freedman
Posted on: July 24, 2006 05:21 PM
Psalm 139:13-16 - For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I
praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know
that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When
I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days
ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
What does this mean to you?
It says to me that humans are created in the mother’s womb.
There is a BIG difference between the possibility of life and the potential for life. The womb is essential for the potential and continual development of life. Without the womb there is only a possibility of for life. This possibility exists in every cell of our bodies.
There is the possibility that sperm may create life. This potential is only fulfilled if a sperm fertilizes an egg. Without successful fertilization there is no potential for the sperms life possibility to continue.
A fertilized egg has no more potential for life without cleavage to a mothers womb than millions of unsuccessful sperm. There is only potential for life when we are ”knit in our mothers womb”.
Upon successful fertilization the egg has the possibility of creating life. The potential is only fulfilled if the egg successfully cleaves to the uterus. Without successful cleavage in the mothers womb there is no potential for the process of life to continue. Fertilized eggs fail to implant in the womb in roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of the time.
As the majority of fertilized eggs do not cleave to the womb naturally, from an Extreme Right perspective, it is implicit that God is naturally murdering more humans than he is allowing to be born. A view I whole heartedly disagree with. I don’t believe God’s will is to murder human life immediately after its conception.
As such the scripture explains that life of the flesh is in the blood. Leviticus 17:11. Receiving the blood of Christ offers spiritual life as explained by the Eucharist. An embryo that has successfully cleaved into a mothers womb will develop its own life-force by creating and circulating blood several weeks after implantation in the womb. Life does not exist without blood.
Stem cells from fertility clinics that will never have the potential for being born because they will never be implanted in the womb should be allowed for research instead of disposing of them in the garbage. Without implantation, there is no potential for life! Why throw away the raw materials when they can be helpful in curing human suffering and disease!
This does not even touch on the possibilities offered by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer – SCNT, which involves no sperm, but a enucleated egg (egg with nucleus and dna removed) and a skin cell. This process has never created a cloned baby, regardless of how misleading the efforts against it may lead some to believe. A cloned human baby has never been born, it’s a fact.
Human Reproductive cloning has never been achieved and furthermore is against the standards employed by the scientific community. Shouldn’t the absent potential of being born, since attempts to do so would be outlawed, and even more so the given impossibility of being born render the moral argument in the discussion against SCNT a moot point?
For instance a woman with a spinal cord injury could use her own enucleated egg and her own skin cell to regenerate Early Stem Cells that provide therapy to cure herself. The potential for cures are only possible through ongoing research and common rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what I believe about blood and life as it relates to scripture.
In the Bible when the flesh and blood are united there is life. When flesh and blood are divided there is death.
In the Old Testament sacrifice was offered by separating blood from flesh on the alter is an atonement for sin. The blood had to be separated from the flesh and “given back” to God. The blood was the “life” or the spirit of the offering.
Leviticus 13:11 For the life of the flesh (creature) is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
In the converse the addition of blood to the flesh creates life. When Jesus spoke at the Last Supper offering his flesh and blood to be consumed, he offered a covenant of a new spiritual life that is separate from the Earthly life, commonly know as being Born Again.
Hebrews 9:14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and spiritual understanding.
In the instance of the Eucharist the union of blood and flesh from Christ gives eternal life.
John 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and in him.
To me this essentially says that you no longer need to sacrifice earthly life (obviously you could not sacrifice another person to atone for you sins) but the blood of Christ spilled on the Cross offered an eternal New Covenant with God to forgive us for sin so that we can partake in everlasting life with God.
Communion is accepting eternal life by accepting blood and flesh of Christ.
As in the case of the Eucharist it is giving eternal life to those who only had earthly life. Life of the earthly creatures, which is what I believe people are until we make eternal Covenant with God, ceases to exist in the flesh when blood is no longer circulated to give life. A heart stops beating. You're dead. If you have eternally life then you do not need the earthly flesh.
Come back to the discussion of stem cell research. Blood does not exist in a blastocyst/zygote/embryo until it is implanted in the womb and biological functions react between the mother and the embryo to create blood in the embryo approximately 4 – 5 weeks later.
It is at this point life is in the flesh of the creature - The Embryo. For the life of the flesh is in the blood. We are not eternal beings until we undertake the covenant of Christ.
My opinion is that earthly life does not exist in a blastocyst/zygote/embryo until it is circulating its own blood.
With this understanding I have no moral objection to the methods that Scientists use of embryos, that are otherwise destined for the trash bin, to be used for cures of major diseases such as paralysis, Parkinson’s, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and a multitude of other diseases that the top Nobel scientists say can only be cured using Embryonic Stem Cells.
We must let the scientist do their work and stop trying to act like we are more educated about what they are doing than we are. It is an extreme but vocal minority operating outside the mainstream of Scientific collaboration that say ESC research is a dead end that will not produce cures. The overwhelming majority of Noble and other renowned Scientists agree that BOTH Adult and Embryonic stem cell studies should be pursued in order to achieve cures for diseases that reduce the quality of life for million of our loved ones.
In the Bible when the flesh and blood are united there is life. When flesh and blood are divided there is death.
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: July 27, 2006 10:46 AM
Seems our politicians are even confused or mislead about stem cell research.
Posted by: David
Posted on: July 31, 2006 12:09 PM
To Freedman:
wtvr man...a dead person may still have blood inside of him and is still considered dead...your use of the bible is mere use in deceiving yourself to say it's ok...
The bible in James 1:14-5 "...says each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed, Then, when desire has conceived it gives birth to sin, and sin when it si full-grown, brings forth death."
basically it is saying when desire and temptation has intercourse, sin is born...yes you can argue there is a process...but if I read you right, you as a christian should agree with me that we shouldn't be searching for that line between sin and not sin, so we can stand at the very tip of the cliff saying...hey I'm still ok...I'm still ok...but instead we should be moving away from it towards Jesus as much as possible...
what I'm trying to say is...
with your in depth knowledge of the bible, you would know that sin is bad...thus you wouldn't even flirt with temptation...becuase you know it's dangerous...and when you cross the line...there is sin...
the same with a life...if you know something can potential grow into a person with full rights...full ability to choose right and wrong...ability to believe in God and be born again into His kingdom...and touch many many ppl for Jesus...I think you'd take back what you just said...
why draw the line, why put limits on potential life? let those who never had a chance to live live for once...yes I know there are ppl who are suffering out there, due diseases that Perhaps stem cell research can cure...but to kill one for another?
yes arguing words in the bible with the laws and stuff...You may win with your blood-life argument...but if Jesus was a GodMan who came to earth and was the the person who told the ppl who wanted to stone the adulterous lady "anyone who hasn't sinned cast the first stone..." I think He'd say...give those "babies" a chance...a chance to taste life and life more abundantly...
1 Cor 13:13 "...now abide faith hope live, these three: but the greatest of these is love."
2 Cor 3:6 "...who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
God came to save and give life...
Posted by: David
Posted on: July 31, 2006 12:25 PM
To Freedman.
oh...also forgot to mention a couple more thing...
it's leviticus 17:11 not 13
and the pre-embryos have blood infused into them around 9-13 days from conception.
at least that's the textbook answer in medical books...
I'm a med student.
but I guess that doesn't really make a difference in your argument.
Posted by: Toby
Posted on: July 31, 2006 04:16 PM
You guys still haven't addressed the fact that there are other methods for creating/obtaining viable stem cells that do not conflict with anyones definitions of life. Given that, why aren't you angry about the fact that these methods are not being federally funded to allow stem cell research without moral complication. Can you agree that the possibilities for stem cell research are worth exploring? If it was clear to you that you need not fear for your immortal soul, would you want such research? This debate has bogged down in the rhetoric of uninformed politicians who know nothing except how to excite a debate about something that shouldn't be debated.
And shame on you Mr. Med Student Dave.
You of all people should be aware of the other possibilties for stem cell creation that have nothing to do with fetuses or embryos. Placental cells and even skin cells can be manipulated into a stem cell state. Besides that, even the embryonic research, which is the controversy, occurs on 5 day old Blastocysts, so that 9-13 day crap is a rather specious statement. This in fact makes what freedman said even more compelling.
How can you thrown down your medical school training as proof of your knowledge on this subject when you quite clearly have demonstrated none? It seems more likley to me that you'd rather be a theology major than a med school student for all the research on the topic you've done.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: July 31, 2006 09:31 PM
Why do liberals always resort to personal attacks?
So what are these "ways" that don't go against my morals. I believe there are none.
Posted by: Shocked
Posted on: October 16, 2006 08:54 PM
To all the "enlightened" guys such as chad, David the Doctor and others: go back to your church.
To the others: don't waste your time with such idi.ots.
Posted by: Martina
Posted on: November 9, 2006 07:44 PM
1. Liberals are not the only ones who resort to personal attack. I consider it a personal attack if I am being told I am a sinner and will go to hell because I do not agree with you.
2. I wish that all those who oppose stem cell research could spend a year suffering with Alzheimer's, Diabetes, Parkinson's, or any of the other host of disease and suffering that could be cured or helped by stem cell research, or be the caregiver of someone who is suffering. How can you say you follow Christ and be hostile and dismissive of those who are sick and suffering? I am baffled by the lack of compassion you have for those of us who are *already* alive - how you are blind to our suffering and fight for discarded embryos that will never be implanted and carried to term and be born into this world.
Do me a favor, go through the New Testament and read only the words of Jesus. His life was about compassion. He healed the sick and had empathy and understanding for those who suffered. Think for yourself and stop listening to evangleical rhetoric.
Posted by:
Posted on: November 9, 2006 07:44 PM
1. Liberals are not the only ones who resort to personal attack. I consider it a personal attack if I am being told I am a sinner and will go to hell because I do not agree with you.
2. I wish that all those who oppose stem cell research could spend a year suffering with Alzheimer's, Diabetes, Parkinson's, or any of the other host of disease and suffering that could be cured or helped by stem cell research, or be the caregiver of someone who is suffering. How can you say you follow Christ and be hostile and dismissive of those who are sick and suffering? I am baffled by the lack of compassion you have for those of us who are *already* alive - how you are blind to our suffering and fight for discarded embryos that will never be implanted and carried to term and be born into this world.
Do me a favor, go through the New Testament and read only the words of Jesus. His life was about compassion. He healed the sick and had empathy and understanding for those who suffered. Think for yourself and stop listening to evangleical rhetoric.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: November 9, 2006 07:52 PM
It's not evangelical rhetoric. My stance is quite simple. I view a fetus as a human life. This is not a religious thing... this is just how I view a fetus. I don't believe that it should be legal to take a life in the name of research. I have a disease that MAY be able to be cured by stem cells. There have been no cures from stem cells yet... FYI. Are you saying that it would be ok for you to stab your next door neighbor to get a heart for a heart transplant? I don't view the two as much different. Taking a life to save another is not right.