Originally Posted by RosieRed
First of all, they aren't "harvested" embryos. They are leftover embryos that get thrown away. How does that make you feel, to know that "persons" are getting thrown in the trash?
I'm pro-life. So how do you think that makes me feel?
So let me turn this around. Have you ever witnessed a late term partial birth abortion procedure? Do you know what happens to that infant's dismembered body parts? They too are either thrown out or incinerated.
So basically what you are saying, as you take possibly a "blind eye" to the abortion procedure, is that we need to make the best of this situation...use them "leftovers" (such a terrible label to put on a life IMO) for medical research. That will give it all justification, and make it all better.
And not all of them are "leftover" embryos (yes a majority are). And with stem cell research the biggest concern in the future
is that it will become a supply and demand situation inwhich it opens or, or creates, a "market" for the production of human embryos solely for this purpose. And you cannot say this is a far-fetched idea. Science knows no limitations and feels there are no lines that cannot be crossed IMO.
"Hey expectant Mother! Are you strapped for cash! Are you weighing an abortion? We'll give you top dollar for your embryo! And it's all for the betterment of society."
And while we're at it, let's just do away with ALL medical research that is done on any human being. No more clinical tests for possible breast cancer drugs. No more experimental transplant surgeries. (Actually, no more transplant surgeries at all, under these terms. Or can we still have organ donors? Probably not "living" donors.) No more nothing. Let's just have scientists sit in a lab with a bunch of chemicals and already-discovered drugs and see if they can strike gold. But wait, how would we ever know if they did? Because we couldn't allow a human to try it out, no matter if it was a cure for cancer.
Now who is going to extremes?
Did I mention anywhere where we should curb or eliminate research or testing? And for that matter transplant surgery (which I applaud). Please explain how that is similar to taking a human embryo, which again, many people feel is a human life, and denying it the right to live; but instead is subjecting it to testing and research?
I have no problem at all when someone is in either a serious or terminal condition, and they want to voluntarily submit to be a "guinea pig" in trying out new and experimental drugs and procedures. Especially on someone that may not have any other choice, and is in "lose-lose" scenario.
As long as they understand the possible risks, and the "pluses and minuses", I applaud the voluntary
testing of new drugs (cancer, etc).
The difference is, IMO, is that they are being afforded that choice
. It's a cognizant decision they are allowed to make, to either accept or refuse.
When we are talking about stem cell research (and nothing else)... millions of people see that embryo as a life
. And that life is not being afforded that opportunity at making the choice.
It simply devalues or cheapens the meaning of life, and what it constitutes.
We're talking "apples and oranges" here as far as I'm concerned.
But you will have to be alot more specific when you refer to "human experimentation".
I applaud medical science for the advances they make.
I just simply believe their is a moral fine line
that should not be crossed, and can send us down a very dangerous slope as a civilized society.
GAC, I'll give you this. Your evasiveness and (in my opinion) ability to turn a response into a borderline personal attack is off the charts. Of course, it's easier to just ignore the actual question.
You'll have to show me where I made a personal
attack on you or anyone else.
And what question(s) have I evaded? Are you referring to the SFGate article on the Reagan administration you posted?
It's funny how Michael and others can scream bias and say people are under the influence of such news magnates of Fox and others (because of their conservative slant); but if I say that an article out of San Fran (which basically is the center of the homosexual lifestyle and activist agenda) may be biased or slanted, then I'm being evasive.
I've heard off-handed remarks/comments made on here at being rightwing or conservative, and that seems to be OK. But when one responds back, we're somehow in the wrong or being evasive? Go figure.
When the AIDS "epidemic" hit the scene in the early 80's, the Reagan administration, I admit, did very little to address it. What I did not agree with was Michael's assertion that Reagan contributed to their deaths (as if he was responsible). That is absurd!
And then to also imply that therefore, this made Reagan a bad or terrible President.
Pick a President! Any President. And regardless of their administration, and whatever accomplishments they had, you will find a segment of the population at that time who wasn't too happy (or maybe even angry) due to a position, a piece of legislation, or a stance they took.
Whether it's minorities, the uninsured, the poor, the rich, corporations, lower class, middle class, whatever.
What I look at is what they did/accomplished overall
while in office.
If homosexuals want to be outraqed because Reagan didn't aggressively go after the AIDS issue, then fine, thant doesn't bother me. And they have some justification.
But that doesn't mean he was a bad President OVERALL.
And that is what I am seeing being projected on here.
I didn't like Bill Clinton. I disagreed with many of his policies from a moral and philosophical viewpoint. But overall, he was not a bad President, and did a good job.
But this thread has, as some have already pointed out, become very laughable.
Liberals are not going to convince conservatives...and visa versa.
So if you want to argue, then go right on ahead. I'm a "battle hardened" veteran, and I know when to stop because it gets everyone nowhere.