Stem Cell/Abortion question

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:13 pm

I've been watching the news (why?) on the abortion/stem cell research debate lately. The big topic of discussion is mostly "How do you know when life begins?" The pro-life guys are hinting that it's when sperm fertilizes an egg. I'm wondering what's stopping them from taking it a step further. If you don't know when life begins, maybe it begins simply as sperm. Would these people advocate making sex that doesn't result in pregnancy illegal? Would having a good wank result in 1st degree murder charges? Would a BJ result in cannibalism/murder charges? Would couples be charged for murder in the 3nd degree if they tried to get pregnant and failed? Obviously this is taken about as far as it can go, but (if logic still applies here) it would seem to be the next logical step.

In my opinion, if you're not alive after you're dead then you're not alive before you're born.

Thoughts on Stem Cell Research/Abortion?

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:22 pm

IMO, life does NOT begin at conception. At conception, there is nothing more then a few cells who plan to multiply.

I think most people who are pro choice understand two things:
1) they understand where pro lifers are coming from
2) they understand that there should probably be a "cut off" point for abortion, ie you shouldn't be able to walk into a clinic due in two weeks and get an abortion.

The problem is, where do you draw the line in that 9 months of pregnancy? I, being a man, certainly don't know. With science at its current levels, I don't think we're able to locate a point in those months where we can be like, "There! That fetus knows, 'I am.'"

In summary, Abortion: a prickly issue where arguments on both sides have merit, but personally, I'm going to err on the side of the woman's individual rights.

As far as stem cell research goes.............Bush is an ass.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:31 pm

I'm of the opinion rules should be tightened up at the top end (24 weeks to 20) law wise otherwise i think.

To be fair to pro-life (I don't entirely agree) they have been consistent with life begins at fertilisation stage. It's certainly a logical point as any to assume life begins. You may not agree but it has some merit. However we simply do not know. Clearly when neural activity and the heart starts to beat

Any arguement that life begins beofre the formation of the Zygote is ridiculous.
It would mean all men are guilty of mass genocide for simply having a wet dream. Heck ejaculating 2 million sperm during sex means if you consider sperm=life you can't lay any claim that men are anything other than mass murders. Considering Women release a egg every month and have thousands in thei ovaries they will never relase there is no remotly sensible arguement in favour of that.

A really good topic on abortion recently on the archive is here: http://tfarchive.com/community/showthre ... adid=30914

On the subject of Stem ceel research I'm in favour of it being senisbly done. The body terminates 1000's of cells a day to protect or mend itself. Growing a few which aren't attached isn't much different to that and there is no arguement that stem cells are remotly going to creat an individual.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:34 pm

Shanti418 wrote:
As far as stem cell research goes.............Bush is an ass.

I have to agree with you there. He was arguing that frozen embryos (embryos that have something like a 9/10 chance of never being used and will eventually be simply discarded) are also people.

Stem Cells have nearly unlimited medical potential. It's medical use could overshadow the discovery of penicillin. When President Bush said that even if Congress votes on the bill to allow stem cell research, he'll veto it.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see it like this:

Basic human life is worthless.
Human happiness (or even comfort) is valuable.

Thus I support abortion, stem cell research, euthinasia, and decriminalization of all mind-altering substances.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:21 pm

The thing that irritates me most about the pro-life stance is that there is a tendancy to resort to religion to support your arguements which sucks the rationality out of the debate.

Plus one gets the sense of people trying to legislate for their own philosophy, whereas pro-choice is far more non judgemental. If you want to abstain, fine, but don't force it on the rest of the world.

There is also often an attempt to suggest that people are advocating abortion as some kind of form of controception - this is hysterical nonsense, people who are pro-choice merely understand that there are circumstances that can arise where abortion is the best course of action.

I don't see how fertilisation is a logical starting point - if i jack off into a petri dish with an egg in it that is not a human being.

Clearly once the foetus is capable of feeling that, with a grace period before hand, should be the cut off point. But claiming you are murdering prior to this point is illogical on rational grounds.

The problem with the whole debate as far as i am concerned is that it is distorted by fundamentalists, and these mainly come from one side.

"If you're so pro-life, don't lock arms and block medical clinics, lock arms and block cemetaries. Let's see how committed you f***ing are to this premiss."

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:27 pm

Best First wrote:
"If you're so pro-life, don't lock arms and block medical clinics, lock arms and block cemetaries. Let's see how committed you f***ing are to this premiss."

Thats pi##es me off the most about pro-life. they claim "life on all accounts" but then attack and burn institutions and people who are designed to look after and save lives.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:31 pm

all men are guilty of mass genocide for simply having a wet dream.

Of course. Just as it's ridiculous to consider a mass the size of a tennis ball a person.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:43 pm

Even when a foetus is alive, it may not be capable of thought yet. Isn't there any way to tell (brain scanning or somesuch) whether there's any actual awareness yet? In the future maybe. At least we could then tell if a foetus is likely to suffer.
If it's just a case of being alive, then what about eating plants? They're alive, and in some cases sort of aware (turing towards the sun). It would imply that mowing your lawn is murder (to go as far as possible). Simplistic thinking I know, but probably about as rational as most pro-lifer's arguments.
The irony would be if a foetus that was destined to be aborted is saved and born, and then later develops a disease that requires some form of stem cell treatment.
I'm all for it - take care of those already alive.

Whoops! Just killed 2 million new lives.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:05 pm

Jetfire wrote:Any arguement that life begins beofre the formation of the Zygote is ridiculous.
It would mean all men are guilty of mass genocide for simply having a wet dream. Heck ejaculating 2 million sperm during sex means if you consider sperm=life you can't lay any claim that men are anything other than mass murders.

Taking it one step further into the ridiculous: If you don't let them out (where a tiny proportion may survive), then they'll just be consumed by the testes and recycled into the next batch. Men, therefore are not only mass-murders, but cannibals!

Autobloke wrote:Even when a foetus is alive, it may not be capable of thought yet. Isn't there any way to tell (brain scanning or somesuch) whether there's any actual awareness yet?

Foetus wouldn't have a brain as such, but would probably have a rudimentary nervous sytem, capable of reacting to stimuli.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:14 pm

Rebis wrote:
Taking it one step further into the ridiculous: If you don't let them out (where a tiny proportion may survive), then they'll just be consumed by the testes and recycled into the next batch. Men, therefore are not only mass-murders, but cannibals!

.

I think women are right. We are b######s.

Nebbie · Post by **Nebbie** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:33 pm

Jetfire wrote:I think women are right. We are b######s.

He said it, not me.

*takes a deep breath*

Abortion & stem cell research is a very important topic for me, both as a woman and as a woman who has in fact had an abortion. I still have conflicting feelings about abortions, but it sums up to where I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. I feel that I should have the choice to have an abortion if I want to, but most women don't know how badly it affects them until after they have it done.

Unfortunately, the line between fetus and person is so blurred I don't think there will ever be a solution. For me, I could go through with the abortion because I was thinking it was nothing more than a bunch of cells. But afterward... I felt like I had killed a living, breathing child. And no rationalization could make me feel any different. It may have just been maternal instinct, but it doesn't change anything.

Stem cells are pretty much the same thing. Where do you draw the line between cells and person? I tend to believe that if the embryos will never grow anyway, they should be used for stem cell research. There are SO many health problems that could be potentially be fixed with stem cells.

Sorry if that got rambly.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:58 am

Nebbie wrote:
Sorry if that got rambly.

Not at all.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:10 am

{hugs for nebbie}

Scraplet · Post by **Scraplet** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:03 pm

Nebbie wrote:
Where do you draw the line between cells and person?

Unfortunatly with this topic, there is no answer to that. The fertilised egg slowly becomes a human, and there is no rational point at where you can intelectually draw the line.

Not to say that I agree with bible-bashing pro-lifers, far from it. You can draw a practical line.

I can live with the argument based on viability. Most contries have changed the legal abortion limit based on where medical science can viably keep a premature infant alive.

If there is a good reason why a woman does not want the baby, then fine, thats her business. If she makes the choice before the infant could survive independently - fine also.

Its just that, one day medical science may be able to keep the 'clump of cells' alive and grow them outside of the human body. If that days come in my lifetime, I'm not sure where my opinion would fall.

ps - before I had kids, I was hard line pro-choice. Now.......

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:52 pm

Then you have the question which Master Denyer has posed before- just because someone is a human does that make their life automatically sacred? Are we human because of our genetic makeup/stage of development or because of whats in our heads? Very deep and difficult questions

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:56 pm

We're unlikely to solve that here - that's the central problem with the debate as a whole. If it was that easy then we'd have a solution that everyone was happy with by now.
I still support stem cell research. It's just a pity that it's got to get rid of the baggage of the pro-life/pro-choice debate before we can begin to save lives.
Has the research actually been proved viable yet?

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:04 pm

Some of the experimental results have been phenomenal- including restoring spinal cords after being completely severed. They also have applications for curing blindness and alzheimers and a host of other issues too. Along with recent developments in understanding HIV/AIDS, it is a very very exciting prospect. Hopefully cures will be available to some of greatest diseases within a decade.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:35 pm

And people want to stop this progress?

Wait until THEY have an accident and need spinal treatment that only stem cells can fix. Or they have a child born with a particular disease. Then hear them change their tune. I've found in the past that it's only people far removed from the reality of these situations that are against them. A bit like your 'people who make the laws aren't subject to them' one, Karl.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:41 pm

Well exactly, its easy to lay the law down about something when you're ignorant of it/unaffected by it.

My dad used to do it about everything being disabled friendly, as if it were some sort of mass insanity. Now my gran is very very shaky on her legs and needs a 'walker' to go any distance more than 3 foot, suddenly he's changed his tune and we don't hear that one anymore.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:47 pm

Are you sure your dad and my sister aren't the same person? She was moaning about disabled people in 'her' lift at the shops yesterday, and that they should have their own 'vegetable box'

. Her words, not mine.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:51 pm

I often wonder about him, I really do... but I have an unconcealed loathing for a lot of what he is (much of which is damage inflicted by his mother, which he then inflicted on me and I've spent the last 3 years untangling and dealing with. I've done pretty good, but all thats left is how I deal with/react to him and I've not figured that out yet. I hate the person I am around him- sharp, abrasive and often cruel but its the only way I can feel defended from him. Least I'm not like that around anyone else, I've fixed that much of myself).

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:57 pm

I never really liked my dad while he was alive, but I miss him now he's gone. Does the stem cell research help with Cancer at all?

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:06 pm

I don't think it does at the moment, but it's one of those areas where they're discovering new thing/new applications for it all the time. Medical science at the moment is very exciting ^_^

They certainly seem to be doing better every day with things like breast cancer and several other varieties- discovering new techniques and new methods to try (because these treatments AFAIK are bespoke, no two people will necessarily recieve the same treatments it depends on their needs and state) so it's looking good I think.

I don't suppose they will ever find a cure for cancer. There are so many cancers with so many causes. imo its more likely they will discover a range of methods and proceedures that will, when combined and worked on over a period of time for an individual, will probably lead to full recovery.

Some people think a similar thing will happen with HIV/AIDS, but I'm confident that they may soon develop something which will help massively. Not only do AIDS retrovirals get better (something like doubling in effectiveness every 2 months!!) but they also recently discovered why it is that the human immune system can't defeat the AIDS virus (it does detect it, but the antibodies produced are so similar to AIDS they are destroyed by the immune system, so AIDS spreads and destroys the immunity of the individual).

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:08 pm

Personally, I think humanity is screwed. Alot of our problems are based on our mucking up the enviroment, which has affected our cells.
And I just don't like us either...

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:10 pm

I used to think that and be very self destructive in many ways...

I think the reason I felt so bad (I genuinely wanted everything to come to an end, all things utterly) was because I hated myself so much. Since I got round that and started sorting out my myriad psychological issues I'm a lot happier and I actually like life!

I'm optimistic about the world and the future! It's nice to be warm at last ^_^

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:12 pm

if someone clones me, creates featus for stem cells. doess it matter if you abort?, as im already alive...

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:16 pm

ooooooh! Tricky! Can't we just keep BOTH of you? One for through the week, one for Sunday best?
Of course there's always the 'twin' argument.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:25 pm

There was a Stem Cell study in Korea (iirc) where a woman who'd been paralyzed for two decades was able to regain the use of her legs through the use of stem cells. I'll say that again because it bears repeating. Doctors and scientists cured a paralyzed woman. When I read that story, it made me physically sick to hear that my government is so anti-stem cell research. THE CRIPPLED CAN WALK!!!...but an invisible man said in that book that he told people to write (and re-write 1,000 times) that doing research on embyonic stem cells for medical purposes was wrong...sort of...

Do you ever want to bang your head against a wall until you don't notice how stupid the people who control our lives are?

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:28 pm

my personal opinion is that stem cell reaserch should be legal.
Clearly its the future of medical science.

Like I was saying, clone me, im already alive, the thing you abort pre-birth is me, but a blank slate. and as it is me and sucide isnt illegal, its ok no? or somthing equally daft.

Anyhows im sure in time they were just clone the cells alone.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:30 pm

In Sweden, suicide is illegal

I dont have anything to add to the debate - but I all for stem cell research. If it can save lifes -> use it.