Something funny goin on.
How in the hell did this thread get 29,853 views with only 3 pages of post?? Alright what's the gimmick?
The Stem Cell experiment, good or bad?
by Brummie 70 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
StinkyPantz
LOL.. well I know I personally clicked on it a couple thousand times ..
-
frankiespeakin
SP,
God your fingers must be sore.
-
-
myauntfanny
Well, I'm very unresolved on the issue too. I don't find these things too clear. Okay, maybe the embryo doesn't have a heartbeat yet in the first few days. But neither does a person in cardiac arrest, and we do everything to bring the heartbeat BACK. We don't go, "oh, no heartbeat, okay, now we can use his organs for other patients". So a heartbeat isn't the only thing that makes a person a person, it seems to me.
When babies are born prematurely with massive problems that require life support, no brain and a defective heart for example, we try to keep them alive usually, don't we? What about people in comas? Even if we don't try to keep them alive, we don't trundle them off to the lab for vivisection. It would seem really...wrong. Wouldn't it?
And people have to give permission to have their bodies donated to medical research after they're dead, so there we show a respect for someone who's definitely not alive, not even potentially alive. Yet with fertilized embryos, we show no respect at all for the person they might have become? It bothers me.
There's 6 billion people on earth and we want to mess with what might have been a human life in order to extend their lives 30 years. Why? I don't understand why we think abortion is a good solution to population control but then we turn around and keep everyone else alive even longer. If disposal is a good solution to overpopulation, why isn't disposing of us who are already here just as good a solution?
I understand women wanting abortions, I don't feel good about it but I know it's just necessary sometimes and I would never judge anyone for doing it. But then to use the embryos for research to extend our lives, that seems exploitive to me somehow.
Those are just my thoughts and internal worries about it, and not directed to anyone personally.
-
Sunnygal41
Brummie, I'm glad you started this thread, as I've been too lazy to do the footwork on what it's all about myself. After reading SP's explanation, I think that I can say that it would be a great thing! I know from catching glimpses of different reports on TV that many people such as Chris Reeves and Michael J. Fox are two who see great beneficial application to the theory........I am assuming it is still in the theory stage, as not much research has been allowed because of the fierce "moral" debate surrounding it............IMO, if there is no sentience to the collection of cells, i.e. personality or a brain, how can I object? After all, I am listed as an organ donor. I figure why not allow someone else to continue living from whatever they can harvest off me, since I want to be cremated anyways? I am no longer an inhabitant of the body, so use it to the best scientific purpose possible. And, visa versa, if there is no "inhabitant" to these bits of cells and tissue, then, why not benefit others by their use?
Terri
-
Sunnygal41
You have not responded to the FACT that the amount of nerve tissue in a 12-week fetus is smaller than that in a pet rat. Regardless of whether a heart is beating or not, regardless of electrical activity in the brain (or tissues that will become a brain), to define a first-trimester fetus as the 'same' as a new born requires one to assert beliefs not supportable by physical evidence.
Abaddon, for the most part, I think I might actually be in agreement with you........however, I need to make you aware of another perspective to the above comment...........ask any woman who has been pregnant, and loses the baby, even in the first trimester, how she feels and she will tell you that no matter how you try to push that feeling aside, there is some connection that has been generated between you and that little bundle of cells. I know, because I went thru this situation. When I first lost the "bundle" I didn't think it would make too much of an impact because it had been so early. However, I find, even after more than 4 years later, it does affect me. I don't fully understand why, but it does. I don't want to slap quick explanations or emotional labels on it, but, there was a connection made, even for such a short time, that's all I'm saying. There is an emotional level to this topic, and it needs to be treated with respect, and not purely intellectualized. To purely intellectualize it, I think, is to diminish the sacredness of life.
Terri
-
Abaddon
Terri
Having been through the abortion with a girlfriend (as much as one can be), I do know what you mean, as she had a far greater emotional reaction than she thought she would. And it was a realy early abotion.
So I understand and respect that. The material anyone would encounter in most facilities in the UK (for example) stress this, and councilling is advised.
It is as understandable as the physical pang some women find themselves experiecing when they see a young child. We are creatures of instinct for all our airs.
So, provided this potential for an emotional reaction (even for an abortion one wanted and doesn't regret and would do again in the same circumstances, as my then girlfriend concluded - it was just something sad that made her wonder 'what if' sometimes, and that was okay) is explained and catered for, I think we need to make things clear.
People of faith who's faith holds abortion wrong and people who view it in a more secular, scientific way (no matter what faith they may or may not have) can't really hope to agree on the issue.
They are having different arguments. Side A's sincere opinion sounds like 'just because' to side B. Side B's opinion ignores sincerely held beliefs of side A.
Given that, being admittedly blunt about the biology of it is the only way for a secular person to develop an opinion of whether abortion (and to what time) is right or wrong. The emotional reaction doesn't make it wrong but nor is it wrong. Letting sentimentality defy an objective analysis is a choice for individulas, not a basis for educating people about abortion.
Gyles
-
Sunnygal41
Gyles, I parse what you are saying. I appreciate your views.
-
czarofmischief
I've heard these promises before, though. It sounds good, and it doesn't unduly bother me as far as bio-ethics go; but I have little confidence that it will actually produce anything worth doing. Medicine seems to have a bit of a problem with a cure; but new and expensive treatments are always popping up. Hmmm... thinking what I'm thinking? Yep.
I guess I've just heard the "cure spinal cord paralysis" promise too many times. It's like Armageddon being around the corner...
I recall reading about a few experiments where the use of stem cells created horrible side effects in Parkinson's patients. Made it a million times worse, or something. I'll try to find it.
Mark my words, it will all come to nothing! Bah humbug!
CZAR