the problem with abortion and stem cell research

[Giliell]

If the person has died, what's the problem with taking their organs to do some good?
It's not like they were killed in order to retrieve their organs, that would be a terrible way to mass-supply organs.

I think those two are equally questionable. I mean questionable as in how much concern they generally raise among people, so if these two issues were taken radically differently I'd think it was hypocrisy. Importantly something can be questionable without being bad.

I haven't given my opinion on getting stem cells from abortions yet, I'm not sure what the sources for stem cells are right now so I don't know if it's even an issue.

Ah, I understand you. But I have totally no problem with harvesting organs of deceased people either, provided people get a say in it.

 

[MoonKitten]

Although i have slight moral qualms about using stem cells for research, i have even bigger moral qualms with not doing the research since it can potentially save trillions of lives and instances of suffering at the cost of only a few thousand stem cells.

 

[Laurens]

Stem cell research I don't see a problem with, for reasons that other posters have already covered.

Abortion is a slightly greyer area. I don't know enough about the development of embryos to draw the line that Squawk mentions (although I believe it it has no nervous system then it's essentially not doing any harm in the physical sense of the word, I just don't know enough to say where that line is). Some people need to have abortions, and they should be available and safe for those who need them. I don't advocate that abortions should be banded around willy nilly to anyone that gets pregnant, if you don't use contraception then you run the risk of getting pregnant that's the way it goes. Abortions in my opinion shouldn't be used like an extremely late form of contraception (although most theists seem to think that abortionists would want to use it like that). If you have a child that you don't want to, or can't look after then I would advocate adoption rather than abortion.

 

[Laurens]

I would like to add that another exception would be rape. If a woman is made pregnant against her will, then I believe that she has a right to terminate the pregnancy, as she obviously had no choice to use contraception before hand.

 

[Demojen]

yes the problem with abortion and stem cell research is that if advocates of this will tell you that they are not murdering a human but even though this is not a fully developed human clearly it is a human in its developmental stages. i have some mixed feelings about this and i have not made a decision on whether or not i am for or against abortion and stem cell research but i would be happy to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Your hair is a part of a human in its developmental stages.
Sperm is a part of a human in its developmental stages.
FECES is a part of a human in its developmental stages.

Name a SINGLE part of a human that is not a part of a human in its developmental stages. People who are against stem cell research make me sick. These bastards are the reason this science is slowed down as much as it has. We could very well have had a cure for aids and cancer by now if not for the controversy created by bigots who don't even know SIMPLE biology.

A stem cell at the point that it can become any type of cell is *not* all that is required to become a human being. The entire process from stem cell to recognized human being requires considerably more energy, resources and time then anti-research bigots would have you believe. A stem cell is only a part of that which eventually becomes a human being, no less then what eventually becomes a toe nail, a hair or skin.

A stem cell no matter where it comes from is not a human being.
You are the sum of your parts and there is no evidence that you are ever more than the sum of your parts.
Stem cells are a part. They are not the whole and they are far from what is required to define a living human.

There should be no controversy. Religion has no place in defining the discoveries of science that it can not even understand.

 

[Giliell]

if you don't use contraception then you run the risk of getting pregnant that's the way it goes.

Yes, and unless the woman had her uterus removed, EVERY SINGLE form of contraception comes with that risk, too. Yes, even tying tubes and vasectomies.

Abortions in my opinion shouldn't be used like an extremely late form of contraception (although most theists seem to think that abortionists would want to use it like that).

Please look into the reality of the issue, look what abortion means.
I can describe the process to you, from first hand experience, with all the details you're getting as the patient (plus the emotional trauma of this having been a wanted pregnancy) if you want to, but I can tell you that it's not pleasant reading.
But I'm willing to share if you're interested. It's not something women look forward to. It's not like we'Re gambling "well, you can always have the abortion if things go wrong". It's not an easy way out, but it is one. I acknowlege the existence of some women who do consider it as a "normal" form of contraception, but really, would you trust such a woman with a pregnancy?

If you have a child that you don't want to, or can't look after then I would advocate adoption rather than abortion.

First, have you looked into the US adoption statistics? There are kids gallore stuck in the system. Sure, a white healthy kid from a poor christian girl who made a mistake might have good chances, but what about a minority kid, a kid with fetal alcohol syndrome?
Second: A pregnancy is not a walk in the park. It's a hard, life-changing experience. If you do it responsibly it comes with a hell lot of obligations and a long list of things you can't do. It will also change the woman's body and is still to this day a life-threatening condition with serious risks for the woman. Mums of smal kids have the habit to chat about pregnancy and birth. You cannot imagine how big the percentage of women who had serious health issues or life-threatening situations during pregnancy and childbirth. I have two kids, I love them, having them was my decission. I would never ever do this again for the benefit of someone else, even if "the perfect family" were ready to adopt.

 

[Laurens]

I apologise Giliell, my opinion is rather uneducated on the matter. I am not anti-abortion though, essentially my opinion is; that we should avoid a culture in which abortions are commonplace, and we should do our best to prevent them where we can.

It will also change the woman's body and is still to this day a life-threatening condition with serious risks for the woman. Mums of smal kids have the habit to chat about pregnancy and birth. You cannot imagine how big the percentage of women who had serious health issues or life-threatening situations during pregnancy and childbirth.

I did acknowledge this when I said:

Some people need to have abortions, and they should be available and safe for those who need them.

 

[Giliell]

I did acknowledge this when I said:

Some people need to have abortions, and they should be available and safe for those who need them.

Yes, but it misses the point. The damaging, the dangerous and the life-threatening situations seldomly present themselves in advance (except in cases like ectopic pregnancies). It doesn't touch the question whether it should be a woman's choice to run that risk or not. When I engaged in the whole pregnancy thing I was aware that this might ruin my kidneys, that I might bleed to death, that I might die of HELLP syndrome. You could not say whether any of those things would happen during the first trimester when most abortions take place. In fact, very few explicit abortions take place for the sake of saving the mother's life, like in the case of ectopic pregnancies. In most cases, what happens is a C-section and doctors will fight for both, mother and child.
I and science agree with you. The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place through solid sex-ed and easy access to contraception. That's what the f...n pro-dead-women-brigade never gets. Because actually they're not really interested in children or women.

 

[Andiferous]

I rather feel the same as Giliell here.

Frankly, a person must put a wee bit of faith in humanity to realise that people suffer their mistakes, but are better for their informed decisions. And given the current climate (sorry) - most men I know are not qualified for judgement.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

And given the current climate (sorry) - most men I know are not qualified for judgement.

Love you too, Andi.
Dx

Anyhow, I must say that this thread has presented both sides and the heart of the stem cell issue...
It's not really the harvesting of them more than it is the means by which they are gathered. I have no problem with Stem Cells being gathered from dead fetuses - I'm an organ donor. And, if I'm not blown to bits, they can use my O negative innards to save someone else who needs them more than I happen to be doing at the moment.

I do have a slight problem with abortion being a choice method - also it wastes money and time alike over just popping 2 pills (Birth Control and Morning After pill) >.>
The morning-after pill did wonders for my female companions, mainly because I made sure they took it...
And personally I think that men should have a say somewhat in abortions - simply on the principe that I am financially and legally responsible for any number of little Hytegias running about. It's why I make any one of them take the morning-after; People are stupid, and shit does happen.

 

[RichardMNixon]

we should avoid a culture in which abortions are commonplace, and we should do our best to prevent them where we can.

I have never heard anyone ever disagree with this. It's a non-issue. The only reason this concept even exists is because right-wing, anti-women, talking haircuts and their ilk believe that it's the pro-choice "agenda," because they look bad if they admit they're really just opposed to women's rights.

 

[Story]

I notice how anyone giving their stance or opinion on this never address the most pertinent question of all. I've asked this question so many times, but no anti-abortionist is able to answer it. None of them... All of them instead try to get my answer or try to insinuate that I'm a psychopath for asking. The response to it is axiomatic, it's something we all tend to agree on, but I've yet to find someone to really give me an answer.

So I ask you LoR...

Why is it wrong to kill people?
How can this apply to stem cells or abortions?

 

[borrofburi]

[Abortion] wastes money and time alike over just popping 2 pills (Birth Control and Morning After pill)

It wastes a lot less time and money than full term pregnancy (let alone the cost of caring for the children after birth).

The morning-after pill did wonders for my female companions, mainly because I made sure they took it...

Which is great, as long as you know that the condom failed... Or that the birth control pill just didn't happen to work in this situation.

And personally I think that men should have a say somewhat in abortions - simply on the principe that I am financially and legally responsible for any number of little Hytegias running about. It's why I make any one of them take the morning-after; People are stupid, and shit does happen.

Maybe... pregnancy sucks, so I kinda think it should be their choice to deal with that hell.

 

[borrofburi]

Why is it wrong to kill people?
How can this apply to stem cells or abortions?

This has always been my approach, but people like me less when I bring it up...

I'd say it's wrong to kill people because:
1) it can cause pain and suffering to the person being killed, though this can be solved by methods of killing that are instant
2) it can cause pain and suffering to the family of the person being killed
3) it violates the social contract that I won't kill you if you won't kill me

None of the above apply terribly well to abortions... The more scary implication is that none of the above apply terribly well to kids under 1 years old... And I think that's why people don't like this argument. The method by which we psychologically enforce the social contract of not murdering each other is by thinking of (human) life as sacred and inviolable. Sometimes this extends further than it rationally should, including embryos...

 

[Andiferous]

Lovely hypocrital to take a stance on abortion when in comparison to stance on capital punishment and other such sillyness.

I literally (as a confessed female) could not imagine the result of a personal abortion (can anyone really? Hytegia - as a man you don't have to ponder this stuff in depth. Even I don't feel comfortable drawing conclusions on this issue, having not done it. )

I'm not overly sorry for being earnest.

My main point is that I have a hard time believing that abortion is ever easy for its' source, and that few have empathised enough as to truly understand the situation. I try to reserve judgment until I hear the reasons and concerns for every individual having experienced this. So right on Borri.

That said, pregnancy and childbirth (etc) are also events with which only a few have experienced, and really, their testament is somewhat focal...

 

[Story]

Yes, most human beings will never experience pregnancy.

That being said though, it disturbs me greatly to see the types of perspectives people have on abortions. The way it's spoke about is as if women just get up one day and decide their vagina's should be fixed and get down to the nearest clinic after work for a couple minutes (or seconds if you exclude the waiting line) and do their business and then leave breathing a sigh of relief because they never having to think about it again.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What is it with woman and this alien idea of them having a say on their vaginas?

Stem cells, we can either just kill them, or use them to save lifes. Hum... though call.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

[Abortion] wastes money and time alike over just popping 2 pills (Birth Control and Morning After pill)

It wastes a lot less time and money than full term pregnancy (let alone the cost of caring for the children after birth).

You missed the point.
It's best to use Birth Control and The Morning-After Pill instead of abortion. It's like taking a bike to the mini-mart vs. filling up my gas to go across the street - I'm still getting to the store to enjoy myself a Sandwich and a Coke, it's just the means to do so are cheaper and easier in the long run.

The morning-after pill did wonders for my female companions, mainly because I made sure they took it...

Which is great, as long as you know that the condom failed... Or that the birth control pill just didn't happen to work in this situation.

I do regardless of pill's success or condom's integrity.
I consider it to be like insurance and an investment combined.

And personally I think that men should have a say somewhat in abortions - simply on the principe that I am financially and legally responsible for any number of little Hytegias running about. It's why I make any one of them take the morning-after; People are stupid, and shit does happen.

Maybe... pregnancy sucks, so I kinda think it should be their choice to deal with that hell.

Yes, it does.
I don't put it past any human on this planet to make me pay half of my paycheck for life, either. >.>

 

[Giliell]

I do have a slight problem with abortion being a choice method - also it wastes money and time alike over just popping 2 pills (Birth Control and Morning After pill) >.>
The morning-after pill did wonders for my female companions, mainly because I made sure they took it...

Andi already explained this:
Those are great (if you like them. I know a great bunch of women who just hate taking the normal pill, me being one of them. For one it reduces my sex drive to practically zero and I'm not the only one. What's the use of being able to have safe sex if you don't feel like having any?)
Should women have to use a birth control form that alters their body in an unacceptable way? Or take the morning after pill each time just to make sure?
Birth control fails and often enough you don't know it did until your period doesn't come and there's a treacherous second line on that test. That's when you need to make a decission.

And personally I think that men should have a say somewhat in abortions - simply on the principe that I am financially and legally responsible for any number of little Hytegias running about. It's why I make any one of them take the morning-after; People are stupid, and shit does happen.

Ok, I hope you're not meaning what you've written the way I read it.
1) No, you don't get a say in whether a woman has or hasn't an abortion. Because an abortion isn't about you. An abortion is about the woman in whose body it is actually happening and her medical decission. It is nice and shows an incredible amount of trust if a woman asks you for advice and wants to discuss the issue with you.
As you say yourself: shit happens. You have sex, you carry the risk, both of you. Yet since nature only offers the possibility of dying in childbirth to one of you, only that person gets a say in whether to take that risk or not.
2) You make them take the morning after pill? I hope you're talking about talking them, seriously giving advice, driving them to the doctor/pharmacy and paying for it. Anything else would make you , uhm...

The way it's spoke about is as if women just get up one day and decide their vaginas should be fixed and get down to the nearest clinic after work for a couple minutes (or seconds if you exclude the waiting line) and do their business and then leave breathing a sigh of relief because they never having to think about it again.

I wished it were that easy *sigh*
Not only does it take more than a couple of minutes, it is not something most women take easy as a decission. It's the way the pro-dead-women brigade wants you to think it were. In most countries and US states there's a whole lot of red tape, hurdles to jump and then you have to find a doctor who performs the abortion which, as I have heard, is not easy in parts of the USA.

None of the above apply terribly well to abortions... The more scary implication is that none of the above apply terribly well to kids under 1 years old...

Well, number 2 applies pretty well for most kids. Number 3 really is extended via the social contract. If you reduced it to people who could actually murder you, it would exclude more than infants.
And #1 does apply to infants as well. Believe me, they know about pain and suffering

 

[Story]

I think the most compelling argument in favour of abortions to me is the fact that with every pregnancy comes a greatly increased life and death risk for a woman. If she is not willing to risk her life, she should not be made too. Men have no say in that matter.