Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work

[duwal]

If the argument is about destroying future life....than every time a man masturbates/uses a condom/ has a nocturnal emission he is destroying thousands of potential lives.

every one of us on here might have killed more than Hussein going by that

[RedGoneWILD]

every one of us on here might have killed more than Hussein going by that

lmao...priceless last couple of posts

[jaybird_1981]

every one of us on here might have killed more than Hussein going by that

Only liberals do that.

[drtom2005]

It is a moral issue, but it's not a religious issue. People on both sides like to make it one, but religion really has very little to do with it other than religious people are often against it and non-religious people are often for it. Murder/preventing another human from living (however you want to look at it) is a morality issue...religion is brought into the debate as jusitifcation from both sides, but is not the core issue.

And no I won't answer your hypothetical because you're drawing a parallel that isn't appropriate to the situation.

How is it not apporiate? Ok I 'll change it then. Say you have 10 year old child with a rare form of cancer and 1000 embryos. Would you do research with the 1000 embryos who are not alive or try to save the child? This is a moral issue. Saving people that are alive now. The religions have change the meaning of life to the point of conception after science discovered this. The people are against this because there religion says so. Do you favor the death penalty or toture? They are kind of in the same vain.

[GrimUSMC]

I'm not trying to change this to a different conversation, but that is NOT why we went to Iraq in the first place. Please go back and read any newspaper from 2003, before the war, and you will not see ANY mention of the humanitarian reasons you mentioned. All I heard was WMDs, and possible nukes in Iraq. Using your logic, why didn't we invade North Korea or the Sudan instead? There was just as much genocide/killing in those places, if not more than in Iraq. BTW, Saddam Hussein was responsible for a lot of killing and death and was definitely a bad man, but he did NOT kill more people than Hitler, not even close.....read a history book instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh once in a while. All this other humanitarian stuff came out after GW couldn't find the WMDs he originally said we were supposedly going there to eliminate.

I agree that Obama's decision to expand the war in Afghanistan is the wrong one, but someone has to clean up the mess left by the last tenant of the White House. If Bush would have just focused on cleaning up Afghanistan and capturing Bin Laden instead of shifting our forces unneccesarily to Iraq, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now.

Why is it wrong?? Do you people not understand that radical muslims will not stop unitl they kill you, or your spouse, or your children, or your loved ones?? There is no negotiating with these people, they want to spill blood. It is better to fight them there, root them out, and hopefully one day rid the world of them. They are not good people, and they woudl kill you as soon as they could.

Now as for the stem cell thing. There comes a point where you are playng god. To die of disease and other things is natural, and it will happen. To try and use our production process to hold off on the natural cycle of life is playing god, and will one day have dire consequences. I do believe there is good to be done from it, but peopel that are ignrant enough to say "can an embryo talk to you" are not seeing the whole picture. Its not a religious issue, as Im not a very religious guy at all, its a moral issue and humanity issue. We are interfering with nature, and we have seen what happens when we do that before.

[OnePimpTiger]

How is it not apporiate? Ok I 'll change it then. Say you have 10 year old child with a rare form of cancer and 1000 embryos. Would you do research with the 1000 embryos who are not alive or try to save the child? This is a moral issue. Saving people that are alive now. The religions have change the meaning of life to the point of conception after science discovered this. The people are against this because there religion says so. Do you favor the death penalty or toture? They are kind of in the same vain.

I would not support preventing 1000 other people from living to save my child, I would consider that selfish. Now one from my point of view: say your 10 year old child has a rare form of cancer, but research could only be performed by killing 1000 other 10 year old children...would you do it?

Religions haven't changed the meaning of life to the point of conception. The point of when life begins has never been consensusly decided, by those who are religious or not, so it cannot be changed. Religious people have their beliefs about it, but they don't have the final decision. I'm sure you'll agree with that, but there's also the other side of the coin that non-religious people have their beliefs about it, but neither do they have the final say about it.

And I am not against this because my religion tells me to be, I am against it because I have applied rational thought and reason to the issue and based my beliefs on the conclusions I arrived at. In my mind, it's not a religious issue...it's an issue of logic.

And I fail to see how punishing or torturing criminals are in the same vain. Criminals have had their chance at life and they abused it. An embryo doesn't have that chance.

Its not a religious issue, as Im not a very religious guy at all, its a moral issue and humanity issue. We are interfering with nature, and we have seen what happens when we do that before.

Very well stated, I'm glad someone else can see my point of view.

[drtom2005]

I would not support preventing 1000 other people from living to save my child, I would consider that selfish. Now one from my point of view: say your 10 year old child has a rare form of cancer, but research could only be performed by killing 1000 other 10 year old children...would you do it?

Religions haven't changed the meaning of life to the point of conception. The point of when life begins has never been consensusly decided, by those who are religious or not, so it cannot be changed. Religious people have their beliefs about it, but they don't have the final decision. I'm sure you'll agree with that, but there's also the other side of the coin that non-religious people have their beliefs about it, but neither do they have the final say about it.

And I am not against this because my religion tells me to be, I am against it because I have applied rational thought and reason to the issue and based my beliefs on the conclusions I arrived at. In my mind, it's not a religious issue...it's an issue of logic.

And I fail to see how punishing or torturing criminals are in the same vain. Criminals have had their chance at life and they abused it. An embryo doesn't have that chance.

You have logical flaw in your argument. An embryo can not survive outside the mother. It is a bunch of cells. Comparing something that can live outside the body to something that can not is not equivalent. The death penalty is taking life. I am against it. And yes if I had a child and could save 1000, I would sacrfice my child. Embryos are not children.

[OnePimpTiger]

You have logical flaw in your argument. An embryo can not survive outside the mother. It is a bunch of cells. Comparing something that can live outside the body to something that can not is not equivalent.

Actually there is not a logical flaw. I said "an embryo life is already underway and, if left to run it's course and barring any unforeseen natural events, it will become a human." If nature is allowed to run it's course, the embryo would not need to survive outside the mother, so that point is moot.

The death penalty is taking life. I am against it.

Ok, what's your point?

And yes if I had a child and could save 1000, I would sacrfice my child. Embryos are not children.

That wasn't the question. The question was you have a 10 year old child that has a rare form of cancer, but research to cure that cancer could only be performed by killing 1000 other 10 year old children...the 1000 die, not the one. It's the same situation as yours.

[drtom2005]

Actually there is not a logical flaw. I said "an embryo life is already underway and, if left to run it's course and barring any unforeseen natural events, it will become a human." If nature is allowed to run it's course, the embryo would not need to survive outside the mother, so that point is moot.

Best estimates are that at most 50% of embryos every implant into the mother. You are also giving human characteristics to a bunch of cells. By your premise, any multiple cell organisms is a human and must be protected. Are you a vegan? Do you think humans have a soul? What makes humans different from other animals?

[drtom2005]

Now as for the stem cell thing. There comes a point where you are playng god. To die of disease and other things is natural, and it will happen. To try and use our production process to hold off on the natural cycle of life is playing god, and will one day have dire consequences. I do believe there is good to be done from it, but peopel that are ignrant enough to say "can an embryo talk to you" are not seeing the whole picture. Its not a religious issue, as Im not a very religious guy at all, its a moral issue and humanity issue. We are interfering with nature, and we have seen what happens when we do that before.

Yeah, global warming. We already manipulate the environemnt alot. To let you know I am against genetic manipulation (picking a child's eye color) of kids, because it weakens our genetic diversity. It makes us weaker for any future incident. So you are against in vitro fertilzation, since we are playing god?