Right, well today somebody in my class gave a speech about why stem cell research, specifically using unborn fetuses, is wrong. Their argument focused mainly on three parts, and the ignorance was shocking, and of course, full of "moral" defenses and attacks.

Their first point was that "according to all studies, stem cells harvested from adult bone marrow is just as effective as embryonic stem cells." I looked up the study she listed, and it was TEN years old! In reality, according to modern studies, embryonic stem cells are far superior and more versatile.

The second main example was that rats with damaged brains were able to walk (they had been unable to move) after being treated with mature stem cells, so there was supposedly no need for embryonic stem cells. In reality, and I told them this, those very same rats suffered incapacitating limps for the remainder of their lives.

Now, I understand that abortion is a sensitive issue, and I'm not entirely certain on my stance, but this next argument is just horrible from every angle.

I said "you know once a fetus is aborted the stem cells can be cloned? You can save several lives with one aborted fetus."
She responded "I believe all life is sacred."
I said "But you think one embryo is more important than five children? You'd let five children die to save one?"
She said "If you're gonna die you're gonna die. It's god's plan."
So I responded "It'd be interesting to know how you'd act if you had cancer."

Of course she proceeded to ignore me and, what's worse, the class agreed with her views overwhelmingly! Some times I feel like I'm the only sane person in my town. There're a few other atheists, but none of them can really argue worth s**t.

Quote:It's god's plan."

God is a shitty planner.

(October 11, 2010 at 7:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:It's god's plan."

God is a shitty planner.

and an even worse engineer

Religious brainlessness is not the only problem here. I suspect the people who agreed with her in your class didn't all do so out of vulnerability to religious persuasion, although religious factors undoubtedly played on the opportunity to increase the overall level of irrationality in this sort of debate. A major part of the aversion to the sensible weighing of quality of life against existence of life is secular, and is an reaction against the overconfident excesses and gross downright abuses of the eugenics movements of early and middle 20th century.

I've had this very same debate at school.

I talked about the act of not using the foetal cells. I described it as an immoral act by their own standards because of the huge and vast life saving capabilities they were denying the advent of.

They pulled out, as you experienced, the 'God has his plans, only he decides who lives or dies'.

Of course, I don't believe any life to be sacred, if the life of the one can save the many, take its life.

Especially when "the one" is nothing more than a gob of goo that does not have a life to begin with.

Here is a good place to learn more about stem cells:

http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.org/

Here's an example of xtian shitheads spreading propaganda - that embryos are "babies" - as they report the first effort to use embryonic stem cells to repair a spinal injury.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/6652515200.html

Quote:According to Reuters, most babies used in the new embryonic stem cell therapy are the children of couples who have undergone in-vitro fertilization. These babies used for embryonic stem cell research are the "leftovers", unwanted and unloved. Those same babies could have joined their siblings and families, or they could have been placed for adoption.

Embryos, which would otherwise be discarded with the rest of the trash in the aftermath of an in vitro fertilization process - try to remember that these people WANTED a baby and got one - are used to harvest stem cells before they are discarded. They are not BABIES no matter how much the lunatic religious fringe whines about it.

The original - less hysterical - report from Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69A4OH20101012

Stem cells are ranked based on their ability to differentiate (change cell type) and adult cells have far less differentiation potential than embryonic.

Yeah, I tried to explain that discarded embryos can be used, but the "It's still human life" argument came up. Then I asked if anyone gave each blood cell the chance to decide whether or not it was harvested when they donated blood. After all, an otherwise wasted embryo has about the same 'intelligence' as any other cell, and since it was discarded, the whole "it'll grow smarter" argument doesn't hold much weight. Of course the hypocritical answer was "But it's blood, it's yours to donate."

Of course, they need to artificially fertilize and grow the egg cell before sufficient stem cells can be harvested, but it's still a discarded egg. The key word is discarded; in other words, an egg that wasn't even going to grow at all without being used for Stem Cell research.