[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

I'm voting no because I can't support the slaughter of babies in any way, shape, or form.

Babies? Who's talking about killing babies? Have you ever seen what these stem cells look like? Embryonic stem cells are microscopic tiny little cell masses that do not have brains! In other words--no one is being killed--there's no person inside of a tiny little clump of cells. You can't point to a petri dish with a thin layer of water and a few cells in it and say "there's a person in there". That type of claim defies all logic and reason.

You can't take a life to save another. There are also other forms of stem cell research being conducted that are more effective and don't involve murder.

How can you murder a tiny clump of cells that doesn't have a brain? You commit more "murder" every time you take a shower and scrub off tens of millions of your own skin cells.

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

Organ donation is voluntary. Abortion is not. The baby doesn't have any choice in the matter. I'm against this because it supports abortion, and it would be one more roadblock to making abortion illegal.

Why don't you also oppose the slaughter of cows for food? An adult cow is more advanced and developed than a three month old fetus with an undeveloped brain that barely functions and that certainly does not contain a human personality nor even thoughts. (In other words, "There aint's no person in there.")

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by snoopygirlmi

Also, I just can't vote for embryonic stem cell research - especially when more has been accomplished w/ adult stem cells.

This argument is a non-starter. You can't "accomplish" anything without doing the research first and it's almost impossible to say that no scientific or medical advancement would come about by doing that type of research.

[northstar22]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

Why don't you also oppose the slaughter of cows for food? An adult cow is more advanced and developed than a three month old fetus with an undeveloped brain that barely functions and that certainly does not contain a human personality nor even thoughts. (In other words, "There aint's no person in there.")

"They don't have brains." Couldn't you also say the same thing about mentally disabled people? Or already born babies? Or even small children? None of them have the capacity to think. Should we just kill them too? How do you define a "person?" When does that personhood start? Conception, birth, age 5, age 18? How can you decide when it's no longer OK for someone to be killed? I believe life starts at conception, and that all humans have intrinsic value, given by God. We are made in His image. Because of this, I oppose ALL forms of killing - that includes abortion, cloning, stem cell research, capital punishment, and euthanasia. ALL human life should be protected.

.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Prop 2 is a bill that involves promoting stem cell research.

The concern is the potential for harvesting embryos for stem cell research. Abortion clinics already encourage abortions so they can make more money. If they start paying for embryos, then young girls may be encouraged to go out an get pregnant so they can kill the baby and sell it for research. I have no idea whether that is a realistic concern, but it is the expressed concern. Most successful stem cell research bills limit or prohibit the use of aborted fetuses for research (they are not necessary anymore). I do not know whether proposition 2 does or not. I still have to find the text and read it.

Stem cell research is here. Someone is going to be doing it somewhere. If they control it and regulate it and do it ethically, I see no reason why they should not do it here. Michigan is a strong place for medical research and that could be one of the things that replaces the auto industry.

It's a real concern and worse. There'd be nothing to stop people from concieving child after child and killng baby after baby looking for that perfect stem cell match for yourself or particular characteristics for ersearch. Those of us opposed are opposed to killing embryo's for others profit. There are enough dead babies already.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

Babies? Who's talking about killing babies? Have you ever seen what these stem cells look like? Embryonic stem cells are microscopic tiny little cell masses that do not have brains! In other words--no one is being killed--there's no person inside of a tiny little clump of cells. You can't point to a petri dish with a thin layer of water and a few cells in it and say "there's a person in there". That type of claim defies all logic and reason.

How can you murder a tiny clump of cells that doesn't have a brain? You commit more "murder" every time you take a shower and scrub off tens of millions of your own skin cells.

Every person writing on this forum started as that group of cells. The only difference between us and them is our mothers let us grow up. Human life begins at conception. That is the only point at which you can say you have life after and not before. From there on, it's just a matter of growing up. We all were once as those cells are now. That's just one of the stages of human development. To create life only to destroy is is wrong. I'd no sooner use the results of stem cell research to save my life than I'd kill my neighbor to save my life (unless they were trying to kill me) and I, certainly, don't want my tax dollars paying for it.

[Bydand]

But Prop 2 has NOTHING to do with aborted embryos. It ONLY allows embryos that are going to be destroyed that were made for the purpose of Fertility treatment and are either unusable or unwanted by the persons whom they were made for. Then they have to be DONATED and not sold. I posted the wording of the proposition back on the first page I think along with a link to the State website for both official and ballot wordings on both Proposal 1 and 2.

[Rapunzll]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

If Proposition 2 fails, I propose that the state government recall all of the new license plates that have the DNA double helix going through the middle and replacing the double helix with a Bible or a cross or a caveman wielding a club.

What sense does it make to try to pretend that you're a life sciences research (wannabe) state when the populace doesn't embrace all forms of stem cell research? The hypocrisy and wishfulness of the double helix on the license plates is laughable.

I support all sorts of stem cell research except for embryonic stem cell research.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Rapunzll

I support all sorts of stem cell research except for embryonic stem cell research.

I agree. My understanding is that umbilical chord blood contains stem cells. Why not use them? I don't think we need to destroy embryos for stem cell research. If the bio parents don't want them, donate them to a couple who can't biological children.

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

"They don't have brains." Couldn't you also say the same thing about mentally disabled people?

They're disabled; not brain-dead or lacking of human consciousness.

Or already born babies?

You might be able to make an argument about the status of infants in their first few months. However, for the purpose of having unambiguous, objective law, as a society we should grant and acknowledge a newborn as an individuated human with individual rights at birth, which is a safe place to draw the line.

Or even small children? None of them have the capacity to think.

Small children can think and have personalities.

All of your arguments attempt to substitute apples with oranges and to then argue that what's right and appropriate for an orange is right and appropriate for an apple.

Should we just kill them too? How do you define a "person?" When does that personhood start? Conception, birth, age 5, age 18? How can you decide when it's no longer OK for someone to be killed?

A person possesses a human personality in the form of a consciousness capable of abstract thought. It is impossible to determine exactly when a human infant acquires that ability but it can be said with certainty that a newborn does not possess it. That is because in the womb there is nothing to perceive so, even assuming that a developing brain were capable, it would still be impossible to develop a human consciousness for lack of sufficient sensory perceptions; there aren't any perceptions from which to form abstractions.

I believe life starts at conception, and that all humans have intrinsic value, given by God. We are made in His image. Because of this, I oppose ALL forms of killing - that includes abortion, cloning, stem cell research, capital punishment, and euthanasia. ALL human life should be protected.

That's fine and you're entitled to your belief system and philosophy, but please be intellectually honest and acknowledge that that is the source of your viewpoint--religious faith. I have debated this issue for over a decade and often I encounter people who try to argue that there are secular reasons for your viewpoint who then end up twisting themselves into logical pretzels, arguing that their view is based on reason and logic and not religious faith.

For you the only real issue is, "Is it right to force my religious beliefs onto other people?"