Judge blocks federal funding of embryonic stem cell research....

What is your point? Half the country is wrong on many issues. What is the embryo lacking that makes it less than you or I? Your answer has to be something arbitrary, because there is nothing scientific you can point to.

I never said anything about sacred and I brought no religious concepts to the table. Please address what I said. I said human life is something pretty special. Human life is worthy of certain rights. It is the universally accepted principle on which our entire society is based.

Science defines what life is, and science defines what human is. And what I am telling is you have to throw science out the window to get to a point where you say an embryo is something less than a human.

You should not argue things you don't understand. An organ is a part. An embryo is a whole. We would not harvest organs from people. We shouldn't harvest stem cells from embryos.

You still haven't address why we even need to study embryos instead of the alternatives.

 

organ systems.

 

I disagree. The other side of this debate is assigning arbitrary traits to an organism to define when a life begins. What I am saying is the embryo is human, and we have laws that protect human life. And human life has rights just for being. Unless you can explain to me how the human embryo is not human with some scientific rationale you can not say the destruction of an embryo is not the destruction of human life.

But we do not kill people to use as organ farms. That is how these embryos end up dead. The harvesting of stem cells kills them.

This is not a moral issue. It is a scientific one. By every scientific definition the embryo is fully human. This research results in the death of the embryo. This research results in the death of a human being. The law of the land does not allow you to kill people.


And again all of this is moot. There are superior alternatives in adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells. These are points no one who supports embryonic research will even dare address.

 

That is only a developmental matter. My two year old doesn't have knee caps yet. Should we cut him up for promising research?

 

Sounds like he needs some stem cell research!

His patella may not be bony yet, but unless he has a medical condition, it is there.

 

This is technically incorrect. I only bring this up because you keep referring to people with the opposing view as "anti-science" yet it seems you've done little research on the subject. I would think a science-driven person like yourself would have your guns loaded. Stem cells used in research come from the NIH Stem Cell Registry. These cells are donated by couples involved in reproductive therapy but there are strict guidelines. It's not like bags and bags are available to take out of the freezer.

The Rand Corp. did a study on the potential sources of ESC and found that the vast majority of frozen embryos are not fit for stem cell research.

RAND: How Many Frozen Human Embryos Are Available for Research?

 

Existing organic tissues, that in the case of embryonic research, that are human. Embryos are humans. There is no valid basis to deny this.

Destroying embryos is destroying a life.

Where they are fertilized is of no consequence. Once they are fertilized they have every trait that constitutes life, human life. That is why I object.

Eggs are a part. Embryos are a whole. I am not objecting to research on eggs. I am objecting to research on embryos that results in their destruction. You are smart enough to know the difference. Stop trying to confuse the issue.

This argument does not address my objection. See above.

One of my best friends is a research fellow at the Mayo clinic. His field of study is adult stem cell research. He has told me in simple terms that even a dummy like me can understand that adult stem cells offer the same benefits as embryonic cells. He even says the adult cells are better because they are smarter.