Tammuz wrote:...stem cell research gives millions a chance, who would otherwise die.
stem cell research IS NOT creating embryoes to be destroyed, it's salvaging some scientific merit from their inevitable destruction.
You may wish to look up just what goes into the process of cloning and extracting these cells for research and experimentation.
"Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" - the scientific definition for cloning and the method used to clone Dolly the sheep is what's directly involved in bringing forth embryonic cells. In other words:
cloning.
SCNT: The nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a somatic cell (skin, blood, or a similar cell) from the person to be cloned. Instead of fertilization, a small electric pulse is applied to fuse the cells together and begin dividing. If successful, the result is a newly cloned individual who begins the same process of human development that we all experienced when we first came into being.
All human cloning is reproductive because it duplicates the genetic material of the donor and creates a new human life. The terms “reproductive” and “therapeutic” address what you intend to do with the cloned embryo: it can be implanted into a woman’s uterus with the goal of a live birth (reproductive) or destroyed in a research laboratory for its stem cells (therapeutic).
Cloning is the method used to create the embryo; it has nothing to do with why the embryo was created. To say that one type of cloning is more ethically justified than another is to misrepresent what is actually taking place.
The cloning process being conducted by scientists and discussed by the media is whole-person cloning rather than DNA fragment cloning. This is not a replication of blood or skin cells; rather, it clones a whole person through SCNT (cloning). Cloning creates a new human life with virtually the same genetic material as the donor in order to destroy it for research purposes.
And for what purpose? For all the talk of embryonic stem cell research
none of it has bore any fruit. If anything, all the testing and experimentation has proven the opposite. Those who have partaken in testing have often experienced sudden production of cells leading to masses. What we define as cancer in many cases? And why should that be surprising? The cells within a human being within the first stages of life have all the blueprints needed for that human being. The cells are preprogrammed to develop rather rapidly just as if the child were yet within the womb.
Adult stem cell research and research towards the stem cells taken from a newborn's umbilical cord have been proven to be much more beneficial and have helped and aided much more people without causing them undue harm.
With the way the more beneficial approaches are being overlooked in favor of cloning and destroying human beings at the very beginnings of life only to be cut down, one shouldn't only consider this matter. But the reason clinics artificially fertilize and implant while knowing there will be those embryos that will die. And then there are those frozen.
And most important why we as a people want to dictate when a child is born, when he or she is not. It's not about the child's life. It's merely what a man and/or woman would want, exactly when they want it. Much like the fact that 99% of all abortions preformed are chosen as a means of convenience...not of specific major health concerns. And when other children are killed during the "medical procedure" then so be it. And to me that's rather selfish. But it goes along nicely with the "me first" society.
Right? Right?
)
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
