Babies destroyed for science

[JustChristian]

JC, please read post #76 and then stop this silly game.

You are trying to justify embryonic stem cell research which does 'murder' the innocent

and you are indiscriminantly calling other's 'murderers'.










Invitro fertilization does not mean that fertilized cells must be 'wasted' or 'destroyed'. They can be adopted out to other infertile couples. Any which are implanted but are miscarried can be attributed to the will of God. A miscarrage is not the same as abortion...... as any mother who's been pregnant and lost a child will tell you..... As happened to my neice and her husband just last week....just a few weeks into their first pregnancy:tear: !

They can be but they mainly have not been. Most are "discarded" (murdered).

 

[Revmitchell]

It is way to convenient an excuse.

 

[targus]

So you think the Christian decision should be to trash these embryos rather than make use of them for research to find cures for various diseases? I don't understand that.

You do not understand because you do not seem interested in doing so.

I previously posted this:

Let's use that logic in a different situation...

If China uses child slave labor to make cheap goods why not buy them since they have already been made - instead of letting them just pile up in a warehouse where they won't do anyone any good?

That doesn't seem right does it?

You see if you operate from a core set of values and principles you can apply them to any situation to determine right from wrong. It is a much more reliable system to operate on than just going by your emotions or personal wishes.

Can you address this comparison?

 

[rbell]

So you think the Christian decision should be to trash these embryos rather than make use of them for research to find cures for various diseases? I don't understand that.

The Christian decision is not to make "extra embryos."

Let's put it like this: If I gave you $100, and you knew I had killed someone to get that money, would you take it?

If so, you are morally bankrupt.

You are attempting the "ends justifies the means" argument. Hope you're wearing pads...falling down that slippery slope is gonna hurt. If you are "in charge," and you begin to use embryos to "cure people," you will not stop using them. The camel's nose is under the tent. You have created a market. Congratulations...you've made genocide a business. Good luck living with that on your conscience.

Try and understand that.

 

[OldRegular]

It is well worth remembering that before babies were murdered for science they were slaughtered for convenience.

And JC helped elect the most pro slaughter of innocent unborn or just born president in the history of this country.

 

[windcatcher]

JC is talking relativism............ this is the world's system of morality and making judgement but not God's way which has absolutes.

Being a Christian doesn't mean we don't exercise compassion and understanding of the human condition....... but we acknowledge that God's way, God's law, God's word, is holy just and pure and that if we are following Jesus, we strive to follow him in all things. We either follow him and encourage others to do so....... or we deny him in denying his law, when we neither follow it and teach or encourage to others to disobediance. Obediance doesn't save anyone..... only Faith and Faith alone saves........ But the desire to obey his Word springs forth from faith. If we find ourselves faltering in our desire to be obediant to God then we should examine our faith to see that it is real. Then the precarious ground one stands on may be that of their own building, an acknowledgement of the historical Jesus and approval of his teachings, as in the 'golden rule' or the Be-Attitudes....... but not a heart deep relationship of salvation purchased by the cross.

The for abortion crowd have similar relativistic arguments as JC makes for embryonic stem cells...... unwanted children, inconvience, budgets, career aspirations, undesired responsibilities to parent, world chaos, etc.. Argueing for embryonic stem cells falls in the same category of relative law: Eventually, the case proceeds that only those having productivity measured in some way of giving back to society, have worth and right to live and all others can die. In relativism, society makes the rules and changes the rules according to its own desires, and, even you, JC, can be considered expendable when society stops accepting absolutes (which it is in the process of doing..... abortion being just one example).

 

[tinytim]

Check this out... http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44943

He signed a law outlawing his Executive Order...

Good!

 

[JustChristian]

You do not understand because you do not seem interested in doing so.

I previously posted this:

Let's use that logic in a different situation...

If China uses child slave labor to make cheap goods why not buy them since they have already been made - instead of letting them just pile up in a warehouse where they won't do anyone any good?

That doesn't seem right does it?

You see if you operate from a core set of values and principles you can apply them to any situation to determine right from wrong. It is a much more reliable system to operate on than just going by your emotions or personal wishes.

Can you address this comparison?

Sure. I've already said many times I oppose In Vietro Fertilization. If you insist on supporting it, I will support using the otherwise murdered embryos that result from it to save lives.

 

[OldRegular]

Check this out... http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44943

He signed a law outlawing his Executive Order...

Good!

Like a deer caught in headlights!

 

[targus]

Sure. I've already said many times I oppose In Vietro Fertilization. If you insist on supporting it, I will support using the otherwise murdered embryos that result from it to save lives.

JustChristian, you really actually read anything here?

I was the one that first stated in this thread that creating embryos for test tube babies is wrong. I don't support it.

I'm going to ask this again - for a third time and I dare you to address the comparison.

Let's use your logic in a different situation...

If China uses child slave labor to make cheap goods why not buy them since they have already been made - instead of letting them just pile up in a warehouse where they won't do anyone any good?

 

[JustChristian]

JustChristian, you really actually read anything here?

I was the one that first stated in this thread that creating embryos for test tube babies is wrong. I don't support it.

I'm going to ask this again - for a third time and I dare you to address the comparison.

Let's use your logic in a different situation...

If China uses child slave labor to make cheap goods why not buy them since they have already been made - instead of letting them just pile up in a warehouse where they won't do anyone any good?

Just because you said that means I have to accept it? No. Read my post # 11 and see if your argument holds water. It does only if you declared your opposition in posts 1-10. Did you? No.

 

[windcatcher]

Sure. I've already said many times I oppose In Vietro Fertilization. If you insist on supporting it, I will support using the otherwise murdered embryos that result from it to save lives.

JC, do you not see how double minded you appear with statements like this.

First of all you are addressing another poster. The content of his post clearly says he is not in agreement with embryonic stem cell research:

Originally Posted by targus
<snip frankly I didn't understand Targus' meaning from his example>
You see if you operate from a core set of values and principles you can apply them to any situation to determine right from wrong. It is a much more reliable system to operate on than just going by your emotions or personal wishes.

Can you address this comparison?

Invitro fertilization does not mean that fertilized eggs are wasted. Some couples give permission for others to adopt any extras..... and some couples prefer to adopt the fertilized eggs instead of going through the processes of hormonal treatments and surgery. For these couples it is a win-win situation.....

But from your statement at the top of this post, it sounds like if someone disagrees with your idea that invitro fertilization results in murder, then you are all for embryonic stem cell research. Theres a whole lot of difference between 'may' and 'will'. As in "invitro fertilization may result in unused unemplanted embryos BUT embryonic stem cell research will result in destroyed embryos.

You've made several posts, specifically #46, 48, 49, 59, 61 and 63which leads me to wonder if you really know the difference between an embryo which can be implanted and grow to have life as a living, breathing person vs an embryo which is cultured until a certain stage is reached and then destroyed for its stem cells?

Your remarks to other posters in posts # 18, 22, 61, 63, 78, 80, 81, and 88 causes me to wonder do you reallly read other posters remarks or just draw your own conclusions?

I don't mean to be difficult here..... but its like there's a problem with language..... maybe I should be private messaging you with this question.... I don't know ...... but I'm trying to understand.

I do think one thing which you are confused about..... because it is one of the first things which crossed my mind when first hearing about embryonic stem cells....... and you seem to keep coming back to it...... is the question..... If extra embryos are produced and not used and will be disposed of... why not put them to a good purpose? Right? Wrong! The reason is because it wont ever stop there. We should go back to the first part..... if extra fertilized eggs are produced..... we should be finding couples who want children to adopt and carry these babies to term. In an ethical and informed clinic, such agreements and understanding should be worked out between couples and professionals before going into these procedures. Out side of this sollution there is no moral solution for their creation or use. If and when science advances into uses for embryonic stem cells..... provided it is allowed to.....then it will only be a matter of time before medicine and treatments change focus to develop new business of producing human eggs for fertilization just to get the stem cells. The holocost of aborted babies may be nothing compared to this if it ever takes hold. BTW, embryonic stem cells are not adult stem cells..... and adult stem cells can be gotten from any person and researched without the loss of life. Already experimentally some people with terminal illnesses are getting a new chance at life by having their stem cells harvested and grown.... and screened to remove any 'sick' cells, then reinplanted to replace the 'sick' cells in their body..... such as blood producing cells in those with cancers of the blood. The possibilities of success in those areas of research.... still yet unproven to be cures or treatment is what fuels the hope of others who think embryonic stem cells might be useful. In all of this, there's elements of man playing God. In all of this man is trying to stay the hand of death which eventually take us all unless the Lord calls us out. But taking the life of the yet to be born is also playing God....... and choosing to kill. There is no way to compare the wrongfulness of that just for the chance that another life might.....not will be..... but only might be spared for a little while longer.

Of course, we, as Christians, can face the uncertainities of life and death because we always have a heavenlly calling and a heavenly hope. But, for those of this world who have refused faith in Jesus as their savior...... the only hope they have is in this life..... and really it is hard to charge them because they have every right to fear death.

 

[targus]

Just because you said that means I have to accept it? No. Read my post # 11 and see if your argument holds water. It does only if you declared your opposition in posts 1-10. Did you? No.

I was confused as to where I posted my objection to test tube babies previously - obviously a different thread. Doesn't matter - doesn't change anything.

I completely and without equivication oppose test tube babies and the artificial creation of human embryos for any purpose what so ever under any circumstance or any condition ever.

Now having made my position on that clear will you please answer my question that I am asking by way of analogy and not meant to take us off the topic?

If China uses child slave labor to make cheap goods why not buy them since they have already been made - instead of letting them just pile up in a warehouse where they won't do anyone any good?

My point being that if one can use your logic of justifiying embryonic stem cell research by saying that the embryos would go to waste if not used for research then why can not the same logic be applied to my example?

By your logic - you would be against child slave labor but willing to buy the goods so they don't go to waste.

 

[rbell]

Sure. I've already said many times I oppose In Vietro Fertilization. If you insist on supporting it, I will support using the otherwise murdered embryos that result from it to save lives.

I'm assuming you make this statement to ease your conscience.

Blame the other guy for your position...

 

[LadyEagle]

Closing this thread since it is on page 10 - there is a 10 page limit on this forum. I have a feeling this subject will be visited again.....

LE