In the debate , I identified far more with Kerry's position rather than that of Bush . Reason ? The act of termination of a non -sentient embryo is far different from that of doing it to an individual who might have anticipatory foreknowledge of his or hers pending termination ; perhaps by a deblitating disease . How is an embyo affected by its termination ? Don't say "it has been deprived of a right to life " because to be so deprived it would have to have continuing post mortem concious awareness of its situation .

We are all deprived of things that we don't know we can have, just because we don't know we can have them doesn't mean we cannot have them.

 

I however also indentify more with Kerry's position, because I don't think an embryo has a right to life. It is rather the parents/mother who have a right to reproduce, or if need be not to.

Don't say "it has been deprived of a right to life " because to be so deprived it would have to have continuing post mortem concious awareness of its situation .

 

That's not necessarily a good argument because the same justification could be applied to the murder of an adult.

 

I'm with Kerry on this issue.

The way I see it, there’s a big difference between killing a living, breathing human being with ambitions, aptitudes, goals, a history, and a life then there is killing just a heap of cells.

 

I really don’t know which way to look though.

I'll add myself to the Kerry side, but for a different reason: The embryos that are going to be used for stem cells are all frozen, and, if not used, they'll just go to the incenerator. As a consumate scrounger and dumpster-diver, putting them to use just seems natural to me.

 

My position on stem cells can thus roughly be summed up as "Hey, if you're just gonna throw that away..."

 

Mokele

Yep, since they will never be implanted into a womb they're not even potential lives.

In the debate , I identified far more with Kerry's position rather than that of Bush .

though I'm for stem cell research, keep in mind that the difference between Kerry and Bush, is that Kerry is for Gov't funded research and Bush is (basically) for private sector funding.

I thought Kerry was also for expanding the number of availible lines, which Bush was for keeping it to the current number?

 

 

Also, potentially dumb question: Why can't we just have a facility somewhere that doesn't have these laws against establishing new lines, use those to establish new lines, and then import those lines into the US?

 

Mokele

The way I see it' date=' there’s a big difference between killing a living, breathing human being with ambitions, aptitudes, goals, a history, and a life then there is killing just a heap of cells.

 

I really don’t know which way to look though.[/quote']

People are just a heap of cells too... makes you wonder.

Yes, but they usually have invested interests.

Of course.

I was really trying to compare the 'heap of cells' with an ant, or an ameba. Is it inherently wrong to kill a cockroach?

 

I guess its kindof a paradox, but looking in the long run, if we consider the practice as killing, then we can say the death of a few will benifit billions and even trillions of people years to come.

I thought Kerry was also for expanding the number of availible lines' date=' which Bush was for keeping it to the current number?

 

 

Also, potentially dumb question: Why can't we just have a facility somewhere that doesn't have these laws against establishing new lines, use those to establish new lines, and then import those lines into the US?

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Actually, this will happen or may be happening. Countries that have no problems with this and actually learn evolution in school will eventually become leaders in this field. America will miss the next technology boom - genetics.