The Players Corner Archive

Recently George W. Bush made his statement that $250,000,000 would be spent on research on embryonic stem cell research.

The controversy is that this requires the destruction of a living embryo, in other words in order to do research, one must terminate life (or perhaps potential for life depending on how you look at it).

The upside is this research WILL cure many diseases, including multiple sclerosis, diabeties, and various cancers. The downside is that each and everyone of us was at one time an embryo, and this research could be seen as a demonstration of man ending anothers life for his own good.

I'll state my own stance on this...

From a religious point of view this embryonic research is considered a great scientific acheivement and strongly supported. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with destroying an embryo for a responsible cause such as curing many diseases, however I do think that scientists should use this research with caution.

We should respect the fact that the potential for life is being put at stake here, and I sure hope that we never intentially create embryos simply to destroy them as if they were some kind of biological and renewable toy to be placed under a microscope. It's well known that stem cells are not just within embryo's but also in our skin, embillical cords, and various other sources.

People will however argue that all those other sources will take more and more years to research and have no intention to wait for scientists to harvest those stem cells while thousands die.

I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.

- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg

If you believe in stem cell research involving the destruction of an embryo, do you also support cloning a duplicate of yourself incase one day you need an extra lung, or heart, or blood etc...

What is the fine line between the two here? In both cases it can be seen as man taking human life and using it as a tool.

Isn't the only difference between the two cases (stem cells and cloning) that cloning is in your face use of life as a tool and embryonic research isn't so "in your face"?

Just thinking of more and more ideas for both sides of the issue to make this discussion more interesting.

- Lord Kranar, human Archwizard reg

I don't want to hear the are killing them for one test and then discarding.

As for cloning, I don't like this one. If they could just clone or create the body part thats fine and dandy. However I think if someone is just "cloned" the lack what we refer to has the "soul".

Using an embryo to save millions of lives as long as it is highly monitored and every one of the doctors and scientists take responsibility for their actions seems allright with me. However cloning humans to be used as body part farms just doesn't appeal to me.

Buckwheet reg

[This message has been edited by LordKranar (edited 09-02-2001).] reg

The embryos used would be from those that have been saved by women who are no longer interested in using them. In other words, women who needed to save and fertilize eggs outside the womb, that were set aside, and the women either successfully gave birth after re-implantation or died. These fertilized eggs would be otherwise destroyed *anyway.*

They serve absolutely positively NO purpose, no function, will never be used for anything else, and are doing nothing other than taking up space in a lab. They aren't growing, they aren't dying, they're in a state of stasis, waiting to be destroyed.

As such, I can't imagine why anyone would have any objection to using them for research, so that some day Alzheimer's Disease, permanent spinal injury-related paralisys, and other debilitating and agonizing ailments will be nothing more than a horrible memory in human history.
reg

As for cloning, I don't see anything wrong with it. I disagree with what Buckwheet said simply because I don't think 'souls' exist. Clones aren't what most people think. They are not dopplegangers. Identical twins are pretty close to being clones. They grow up as products of their environment. I see nothing wrong with either.

Sonic reg

-John

------------------
AIM: High Lord 42o
EMail: djdisapate@djdisapate.com
---------------------
www.djdisapate.com
www.eternalbeats.net
www.eraver.net
---------------------
(Ever wonder if rubber chickens think people are funny?) reg

They aren't any more potential humans than the healthy egg a woman releases when she menstruates. Should that be considered immoral too? Take it a step further - if a man and woman have sex, millions of sperm die. Each sperm has the potential to fertilize an egg, but is destroyed in the act of trying. Should that, also, be considered immoral?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny:
I do not think stem cell research is a good idea. 'The ends justifies the means' idea does not go over well with me at all. If we are to use these potential humans as tests to help us in the future, than I say we are as bad as the Nazi's. I'd like to see what they say about us 50 years from now...
Please don't be offended by this post, it's just my opinon. I just think toying with human lives, in any way, is wrong.
Johnny

---

reg

------------------
It don't matter to jesus! reg