[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

"Curing illness" is of course only one reason to study stem cells--though it's understandably the Left's favourite, because it makes for the best sound bites. In fact, much of the research that gets done never leads to cures directly, but instead enhances our understanding of cell development, embryology, the healing of injuries, etc.

Absolutely. The problems that I have with stem cell research is the method they are procured. Yes, I understand that these cells are 'thrown away' otherwise. I would honestly prefer that, but again, that's just me. If there was a way for scientists to 'extract' stem cells instead of 'making' them, this wouldn't be a debate at all! So why is it that scientists won't spend the time to figure out how to 'extract' them?

With that said, I have to say that the scenario you describe, in which you get an illness or injury that can only be treated with stem cell therapies (assuming they even work) presents more than a dilemma. It leaves you in the position of preferring one of these scenarios: a) stem cell research has found a cure, but you refuse treatment and die (assuming it's something fatal) or b) stem cell research was banned and no cure was ever found, so you die anyway.

A bit far, no? Again, the problem with stem cell research is the method of procurement. Find a new method of procurement, and continue on like happy campers. which leaves us with a c) and a d) option. (I notice that you conveniently left out my scenario in which one can assume regular science would have found the same cure, or in this case, scientists find a different method of extracting stem cells and can continue on with their research without ANY ethical dilemmas at all.

You can't compare the fact that private industry (along with some regulations) has provided vegetarians with the option of not eating meat, or of eating organic food (which is totally different, btw) to your "choice" not to allow stem cell research.

Yes I can. Science has found other methods for people to get the proteins and such that vegetarians need from alternate sources. They determined that there were enough humans that wanted such products, so they went ahead and found a way to make them without the use of animals or animal byproducts. Yes I realize organic foods are different, but again, the same theory applies. What difference does it make if I like my fruit with pesticides? Let's give those who prefer organic foods the option of buying organic foods.

The reason is simple: whether scientists are allowed to pursue a certain line of research affects everyone. Whether I choose to have a hamburger at lunch doesn't. But there's a further problem with this analogy:

Absolutely agree. Which is why I, and many persons, don't have a problem with stem cell research, but a problem with the way these cells are created and destroyed. Solution: find a new way to procure stem cells.

If A) you believe it is immoral to destroy a blastocyst for scientific purposes and B) therefore stem cell research should not proceed because of how it affects you morally, regardless of whether it affects you PERSONALLY, then vegetarians have a real problem, because:
A) they believe it is immoral to kill an animal for food and B) therefore it should be illegal to eat meat for anybody, regardless of whether it affects them personally.

Wrong. Vegetarians have a choice. Currently, I do not. Stem cell research ABSOLUTELY WILL affect me in some way. My family has a history of hereditary colon cancer. You think they aren't going to find a cure for that? Do I just not have children then because I know they'll likely get cancer and I don't want 'dirty' treatment? If research goes along with the current method of procuring these cells, then I will NEVER have a choice. If they find a different way to get stem cells, we'll all benefit without having it bother our morals.

Here's where I get confused. If using blastocysts for scientific research constitutes someone else forcing their morals on you, why is that not the case for blastocysts that are created and discarded for fertility purposes? Also, if they're going to be discarded anyway, why not use them to help people? Isn't that a net moral good?

Because I am not forcing my morals on someone else. Using blastocysts for research could develop a treatment that I would then have moral issues taking. If someone else wants to make and kill 5 babies just to have one, that's their own moral decision and does not affect me.