Posted by Camille Dumont on June 9, 2005, at 17:35:45
In reply to Re: Whats wrong with stem cell research, posted by skybdark on June 7, 2005, at 19:00:43
> "Many people have come out in opposition to stem cell research. Why? Because the major source of stem cells for research today is embryos, and the embryos are destroyed in the process of extracting the stem cells.
It all depends on what your definition of an "embryo" and a "human" is. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, at least in the legal sense in Canada, she is making a decision on a part of her body. The developing embryo is made from her and in her and thus still for her to decide what to do with, just like someone can decide to donate a kidney.
Umbilical cords are also a source of stem cells. They can be extracted after birth and if not they are discarded with the placenta anyway.
> What's the big deal? Genetically, an embryo is a human being. A very tiny, undeveloped human being, but a human being nonetheless. Even if stem cell treatments ultimately prove successful, embryonic stem cell treatment involves the deliberate killing of a human being in order to use his body parts to treat another human being.
How about a reproductive cell? Its also genetically potentially a human. When people go to a fertility clinic, severa eggs are fertilized, frozen and eventually destroyed when they are no longer needed, why not use those? How about when people get an abortion, those also get destroyed. If you make laws so that nobody can get any sort of advantage (monetary or otherwise) from supplying stem cell material then there would be no financially-motivated incentive and should not make people have abortions just for the sake of selling the stem cells.
>
> Supporters of embryonic stem cell research point to all sorts of good that might result. They paint glowing pictures of the diseases that might be cured and the people who might be helped. But does this justify killing an innocent human being?
>
Killing a human being or harvesting something from tissues destined to be destroyed anyway?> Surely we all appreciate the value of organ transplants. No one questions that many, many lives have been saved because of organ transplants, and many more have been improved in one way or another. But a continuing problem is the shortage of healthy organs available for transplant. There are long waiting lists for transplant organs. Suppose that someone suggested that this probably could be easily solved if we made it legal to kill selected people so that there organs could be "harvested". Think of all the good that could result! Why, one such person could provide dozens of organs -- a heart for this patient, two kidneys for two more, retinas, bone marrow, etc etc. Think of how many lives could be saved by one death! Wouldn't that make it worth it? And we could carefully choose the people who would be selected as donors.
Again, it is where you draw the line between a simple living organism and a human being with rights. A fuzzy and complex legal issue for sure.
>
> They could be chosen from particularly disliked groups, like minorities, the handicapped, or lawyers.
>
In some sort of totalitarian regime perhaps. But it seems to me that such an example is perhaps extreme. Yes in some countries, poor people sell their organs but I've yet to hear of anything resembling state-ordered organ donation or harvesting. I think the important thing is that people never profit when giving something from their body. That way they don't do it for financially-motivated reasons and thus poor people cannot be coaxed / tempted / bought.> How would you react to such a proposal? That is exactly what is being proposed here. Medical researchers think that they may be able to save or improve the lives of some people by killing others.
>
> So they insist that it should be legal to kill these human beings in order to help others." sigh
poster:Camille Dumont
thread:504387
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/510148.html