Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Qrayze** · 01-28-2012, 01:02 AM

I agree the issue isn't silly, but less people would be all up in arms about it if they actually understood what was going on.

**Mommy2Kids** · 01-28-2012, 12:50 PM

The bodies of murdered babies are being used for research.

I fail to see how that isn't repulsive on any level.

**Qrayze** · 01-28-2012, 05:36 PM

Stem cells don't just come from aborted babies; they also come from umbilical cords.

Ricardo · 01-28-2012, 06:57 PM

You know the bodies of dead people are used to train doctors. Some of those dead people may have been sinners. Would you want a doctor who touched one of those bodies to touch you?

dramaturge · 01-28-2012, 08:20 PM

(01-28-2012 12:50 PM)Mommy2Kids Wrote: The bodies of murdered babies are being used for research.

I fail to see how that isn't repulsive on any level.

The stem cells in this story are not from fetuses. The original stem cell line from which they have descended for the past umpteen years ago may have been from early stage in vetro fertilization. Or they may have been from umbilical cords. None of them were from implanted fetuses that were then aborted. These stem cells are effectively removed from that entirely at this point, being several scientific generations down the road. And they are not in food, which is what this bill is about. This bill is silly. And is based on a complete ignorance of science and lack of knowledge as to what is going on. Putting forward bills like that that have no basis in actual facts makes pro-lifers look bad.

**Mommy2Kids** · 01-29-2012, 11:48 PM

(01-28-2012 08:20 PM)dramaturge Wrote:
(01-28-2012 12:50 PM)Mommy2Kids Wrote: The bodies of murdered babies are being used for research.

I fail to see how that isn't repulsive on any level.

The stem cells in this story are not from fetuses. The original stem cell line from which they have descended for the past umpteen years ago may have been from early stage in vetro fertilization. Or they may have been from umbilical cords. None of them were from implanted fetuses that were then aborted. These stem cells are effectively removed from that entirely at this point, being several scientific generations down the road. And they are not in food, which is what this bill is about. This bill is silly. And is based on a complete ignorance of science and lack of knowledge as to what is going on. Putting forward bills like that that have no basis in actual facts makes pro-lifers look bad.

This is from the article I posted:

Shareholders of PepsiCo have filed a resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to force the company to stop contracting with a research firm that uses cells from aborted babies in its process of producing artificial flavor enhancers. According to LifeNews.com, Pepsi has “ignored concerns and criticism from dozens of pro-life groups and tens of thousands of pro-life people who voiced their opposition to PepsiCo contracting with biotech company Senomyx even after it was found to be testing their food additives using fetal cells from abortions.”

**Mommy2Kids** · 01-29-2012, 11:52 PM

(01-28-2012 06:57 PM)Ricardo Wrote: You know the bodies of dead people are used to train doctors. Some of those dead people may have been sinners. Would you want a doctor who touched one of those bodies to touch you?

Apples and oranges. From what I know, adults who are of sound mind can opt to allow their own bodies to be used for science.

And this has nothing to do with being touched by a sinner.

I am unashamedly pro-life, and your mocking me changes nothing.

Ricardo · 01-30-2012, 12:37 AM

I'm pro-life also. What I'm objecting to is the simplification of a complex issue into wrong solutions. Pro-life objections about stem cell research are misplaced. NOBODY is trying to encourage more abortions so they can get at the stem cells.

Are you familiar with the HELA cells? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa The book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" is fascinating. This is another one of those cases that are complicated, and where there is definitely no simple, easily understood answer.

Hela cells are now ubiquitous. They are in every lab of every country in the world. They have been used to find cures and save countless lives. And they will continue saving lives until the Lord comes back again. At what point did they stop being the cells from Henrietta Lacks, who died in 1951? What would some people think if they knew that the medicine they were using was developed thanks to research done with the cells of a Black woman?

The cells used by that company hired by Pepsi are so far removed from "bodies of murdered babies" as to be close to "bearing false testimony." Do you know what cells were used to test the medicine you take? A similar case could be made just for ANY medicine, and just about any processed food. Pepsico owns Kentucky Fried Chicken. Now THAT is scary. Attacking one specific company, while ignoring all the rest is hypocritical. It shows this for what it is: a crass manipulation.

That is what I'm mocking.

Most pro-life people totally ignore the most obvious solution to abortions: Pregnancy prevention. Do you really want to prevent abortions? Are you handing condoms to every kid you know? Does your daughter have a few condoms in her pocket at all times, (to pass on to her friends who are sexually active?) We could see the end of elective abortions in our lifetime if we really put our minds to it. Instead of going off on a rabbit trail that really has nothing to do with being "pro-life."

That is sort of like attacking illegal aliens for taking American jobs... It would be more efficient to attack the (American) employers who give American jobs to undocumented workers (paying them substantially less...) Oh, and while we are at it, let's punish those employers who take American jobs and send them to Singapore.

***Darrell*** · (This post was last modified: 01-30-2012 06:39 AM by Darrell.)

What you're asking is the same ethical question as "should we use inhumane Nazi science research if it will save lives"

There's a fine ethical line between saying "the damage has already been done let's use what we can" and "the ends justify the means." That's why President Bush authorized the use of research on existing stem cell lines while denying funding for any new lines to be created. What's done is done and we can't unring the bell of the lives that have already been ended. That's not an excuse to exploit other lives that are being snuffed out.

Above all, we should try to approach the topic with a little charity. I agree that a lot of folks need to do some research. But even ethicists who have made this their life's work often have a hard time drawing hard and fast lines.