News-Record.com

Nancy- I was disappointed in Bill Frist's flip-flop. But I am not sure if the votes are there to override the president's expected veto.

So long as there are people who want to treat a blastocyst as a full-fledged human being, the debate won't be anywhere near an end.

I just wonder what the future will look like. What if Korea develops a cure for Alzheimers using stem cells? How many people in America will refuse to use it because of its origin?

The first question that should be asked in the debate on ESCR and with abortion is: "Should I be able to kill this?" Defining what "this" is is critical. Everything else in the debate is secondary to this question.

Yes indeed Ecuman. Tell us Eric? What does science say about when life begins?

But...(and I have to admit I am wading into unfamiliar water here) aren't the cells they use already sentenced to "death?" Won't the embryos be discarded anyway? Am I misunderstanding how this stem cell thing works?

Govtwriter, I understand your point that the embryos may be discarded anyway, but I have a question. Should a prison guard be allowed to shoot a death row inmate in the head since he or she has already been sentenced to death? Why or why not?

Tell me yourself, Chip. For instance, is an egg a "life"? You've seen films, I expect, of sperm that move on their own. They all contain human genetic material. Should we avoid killing any of them? What does your book of infinite wisdom tell us?

"Govtwriter, I understand your point that the embryos may be discarded anyway, but I have a question. Should a prison guard be allowed to shoot a death row inmate in the head since he or she has already been sentenced to death?"

Would you mind explaining this? Are you saying that this situation and using embryos that are going to be discarded anyway for stem cell research are morally the same? How do you figure?

Eric, I didn't make a claim, I merely asked a question. It is up to Govtwriter (or you if you agree with his postion), to defend the position. Tell me, why are the two scenarios different?

"Eric, I didn't make a claim, I merely asked a question."

So what exactly are you saying? That you were asking a question out of the blue? I have no interest in playing semantic games here. If you post to a thread, I think it's reasonable to assume you're interested in making a point regarding the topic at hand. Unless you're like Chip, who thinks that it's OK to post polemics after a discussion peters out.

I have no burden of proof here. If you asked a question that you think relates to the topic, I think that you need to explain why you think it does. Because common sense gives little hope that you can connect a test-tube embryo with a convicted criminal, let alone connecting a lab employee with a prison guard. Either justify your attempt to connect these or admit that you're off topic.

Eric, Nice evasive manuever. If you will answer the question, I will give you my point. Why can one be killed (embryo)and the other one can't (inmate)?

Well, ECUMAN, from my perspective...these cells can be used to help people who are living or they can be thrown in the trash (that's if I'm even understanding how the whole stem cell thing works, which is what I alluded to in the first message and thought someone might clarify, but instead I got you so...)

Govtwriter, I understand your sentiment of wanting to help sick and suffering people. These embryos should not be created and then disgarded (killed). There are people who are willing to adopt many of these embryos to raise as children. They embryos are tiny human beings and should not be killed, allowed to die, disgarded or whatever politically correct term people want to use. I don't think any of us are in a position to decide who is a more valuable human being and who should live and who should die. What if we decided that the elderly should be killed to save the unborn, or infants, or you or me?

OK, ECUMAN, I understand you, too, seems as if you wish people wouldn't have abortions and then there wouldn't be any stem cells to use. However, I don't know that the "hope" and "wish" creed works in this situation. The reality is that women DO abort babies, and the stem cells are there to use -- they aren't going to become babies unless there's more to this I don't know about (which I admit is possible cause I could fit my knowledge about this in a thimble), and they could be used to save the lives of the living and breathing people. Cells v. living, breathing people. It just seems simple to me.

Govtwriter, You are making my point in this argument when you say "cells vs living breathing people". The first question that needs to be answered is what is "this" in the "Can I kill this" question. When does someone change from a cell to a living breathing person? Apparently, it is morally acceptable to kill "cells", but not people. You claim that you lack some knowledge in this area (I do as well), but you have decided that it is OK to kill these "cells". If you are not sure, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of life? Let's suppose that you were the supervisor of a demolition team that was going to blow up an old apartment building so that a new hospital could be built. You ask one of your crew if the building has been evacuated and he says that does not know. Would you go ahead and flip the switch to explode the building without knowing someone was inside or would you check to make sure it was empty?

If, you disagree with me I'm not angry at you, I just think these factors should be thought through clearly. Our society is making what I think are arbitrary decisions about who should live and who should die.

OK, ECU I was out of town for much of last week but I'm back and ready to chat/type! See, I can't make the decisions for all women or even monst women, I can only make decisions for myself. And since some women choose to abort their babies/fetuses, and the cells can be used to save some other folks, I don't see why they shouldn't be used. In a perfect world, every child that is conceived would be carried to term, raised and loved. However, we don't live in that world we live in this one. So, if the cells are not going to develop into a full term baby because women for whatever reason choose to and CAN abort, I don't see why they shouldn't be used to help others. I might be missing your point though...