Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells

[sass_in_the_pants]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6171083.stm

Here's another one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...vestigator.html

This is what I said in the other thread about Prop 2:

"What happens when the supply of human embryos doesn't meet the demands?

With embryonic stem cell research, you are not only destroying human lives, but you are creating a market for doing so. You have now enshrined the need for destruction of human embryos.

Let's say that pharmaceutical companies have found the cure for everything under the sun using embryonic stem cells. Do you think they would ever allow themselves to run out of such a wonderful panacea? Do you think that they would go to great lengths (as they have in the past and continue to do so in developing nations) to ensure that they are still able to bring their product to market? You don't think they would pay women for their unborn children? Women already pay to get rid of their unborn children. I hesitate to think of what would happen if they could actually stand to profit from it, too."

That's what I said in the other thread.

I felt I should correct myself.

I said that companies would pay women for their babies. That is incorrect. Apparently, they'll just steal them. Furthermore, I suggested that this sort of thing would happen in the future. Wrong again. It's happening now.

My concern all along was that when you start to reduce a person, no matter how small, into its various parts, what you end up with is a general degradation of the value of human life. THAT is why I am voting no on prop 2. Some suggested it was a moral issue for me. It's not. It's a human rights issue. I want to see the world rid of illness, too. I don't think any sensible person would ever wish for anything different. The question is how do we achieve it. And I feel that taking the lives of some to improve the lives of others is very much the wrong way.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I guess those people that said "that kind of thing will never happen" have to change it to "that will never happen HERE"

the whole thing sickens me.

[Oh_My_Goth]

First off, I say this.....WHAT THE FUCK does this have to do with Prop 2?????

What?? 'Oh, well it could happen here'

Well yeah, it could, but the chances of it happening on a grand scale, such as in the Ukraine are very slim.....

The healthy babies being used thing is all speculation.....

The inquiry was abandoned for lack of firm evidence, but is to be reopened after fresh allegations in the press. A BBC report on the subject, claiming that healthy babies may have been killed, is to be broadcast tonight on Radio 4.

Am I just too accepting of our beautiful chaotic Universe to see this point?????

How this could be used in comparison to proposal 2.....

I love each & every Quark of everything in this place, but shit happens, and that is part of that beauty.....Yes, even the ugly has it's uses.....

Ugly things like dead babies being torn apart and parts of them being harvested for the good of others.....

Humans have decided that they need to advance advance advance.....

Everything needs to be faster and stronger, components need to be smaller, everything more efficient.....

We must have the answers for EVERYTHING.....This almost sickness of people needing to know 'why' for every little thing has turned them into monsters.....

When all they had to do is search them selves.....

Shit, I would bet that a good portion of the 'disease' in the world was caused by humans trying to advance.....So they should fix it.....

See, I have resigned to letting humanity eat itself.....I just protect what's necessary.....Not everyone & everything seems necessary to Me.....

This world is fucked; we can't let the behavior of one to ruin things for everyone.....Basically I'm saying that just cuz the Ukraine is possibly {probably} doing 'unethical' things with stem cell harvesting, that doesn't mean we shouldn't let people do research here.....

I kind of went off subject just for you Sass, you have told Me in the past that you don't understand Me point of view, so I thought I would try to explain my reasons for saying what I am saying.....

Although, I am doubting it helped.....I have an odd take on things.....& There is not enough space on the intrawebs to really explain the complexity of my reasoning.....

[pomba gira]

First off, I say this.....WHAT THE FUCK does this have to do with Prop 2?????

What?? 'Oh, well it could happen here'

Well yeah, it could, but the chances of it happening on a grand scale, such as in the Ukraine are very slim.....

The healthy babies being used thing is all speculation.....

Am I just too accepting of our beautiful chaotic Universe to see this point?????

How this could be used in comparison to proposal 2.....

I love each & every Quark of everything in this place, but shit happens, and that is part of that beauty.....Yes, even the ugly has it's uses.....

Ugly things like dead babies being torn apart and parts of them being harvested for the good of others.....

This world is fucked; we can't let the behavior of one to ruin things for everyone.....Basically I'm saying that just cuz the Ukraine is possibly {probably} doing 'unethical' things with stem cell harvesting, that doesn't mean we shouldn't let people do research here.....

+1

and I will add, this is the kind of thing that happens when any emerging technology is pushed outside the mainstream... if something is illegal, there is NO way to control it. If the research is legal, some kind of oversight and controls can be set up. There is also the consideration that if a technology is outside the scientific establishment, who's to say what works and what doesn't? This article gives the impression that stem cells are being used in a manner equivalent to rhinoceros horns or tiger bones, rather than used in any kind of legitimate research. The more legitimate research is done, the less space there is for the kind of black market stuff being alleged in the articles. Heavy on the "alleged"- there is a lot there that doesn't make sense to me, but I don't really feel I have the kind of detailed background info needed to comment on that.

[Oh_My_Goth]

+1

and I will add, this is the kind of thing that happens when any emerging technology is pushed outside the mainstream... if something is illegal, there is NO way to control it. If the research is legal, some kind of oversight and controls can be set up. There is also the consideration that if a technology is outside the scientific establishment, who's to say what works and what doesn't? This article gives the impression that stem cells are being used in a manner equivalent to rhinoceros horns or tiger bones, rather than used in any kind of legitimate research. The more legitimate research is done, the less space there is for the kind of black market stuff being alleged in the articles. Heavy on the "alleged"- there is a lot there that doesn't make sense to me, but I don't really feel I have the kind of detailed background info needed to comment on that.

[Constantin]

ok so now there killing babies whatever. did everyone forget about the fact that black market organs have been harvested off fully grown people too like the unexpected tourist who goes missing and then someone here or around the world ends up with a healty new liver or heart but who am i to make that point. the world is screwed have fun

[Oh_My_Goth]

ok so now there killing babies whatever. did everyone forget about the fact that black market organs have been harvested off fully grown people too like the unexpected tourist who goes missing and then someone here or around the world ends up with a healty new liver or heart but who am i to make that point. the world is screwed have fun

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Stem Cell research is NOT Illegal.

Fetal Stem cell research is NOT Illegal.

No form of stem cell research is Illegal. None. It's all legal.

[Oh_My_Goth]

Stem Cell research is NOT Illegal.

Fetal Stem cell research is NOT Illegal.

No form of stem cell research is Illegal. None. It's all legal.

Somebody said it was illegal?????

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Yes

[Oh_My_Goth]

Yes

+1

and I will add, this is the kind of thing that happens when any emerging technology is pushed outside the mainstream... if something is illegal, there is NO way to control it. If the research is legal, some kind of oversight and controls can be set up.

Is that what your referring to?????

That all seems like "IF"s to Me.....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

If has many uses. In this case, it's used in the If/Then context. Combined with the preceding sentence and the rest of the body of the text, along with the conversation matter... illegality of the given subject is implied rather than implicitly stated. Nothing she said makes sense without the implication that fetal stem cell research is illegal.

[Oh_My_Goth]

If has many uses. In this case, it's used in the If/Then context. Combined with the preceding sentence and the rest of the body of the text, along with the conversation matter... illegality of the given subject is implied rather than implicitly stated. Nothing she said makes sense without the implication that fetal stem cell research is illegal.

Whatever works.....

[pomba gira]

Letter/spirit kind of question. Not illegal but currently subject to constraints that make it difficult to pursue effectively.

[sinmantyx]

Wow - ok, I have to admit I didn't bother reading the articles presented. Why? Because they were not relevant.

ALL that prop 2 does is allow fertilized eggs that would OTHERWISE BE DISPOSED OFF be used for research if they are DONATED.

Just like so many other prop 2's (why is it ALWAY 2?) there is tons of misinformation swimming around. I suggest that - before voting - read the language of the proposal.

It is my understanding that it explicitly states that those who donate CANNOT be compensated. So, the idea of "setting up a trade" is not a valid concern. Also, these fertilized eggs are created for in vitro fertilization at clinics. There is absolutely no plans for these cells to ever be implanted into a woman to possibly become a baby. They are "left over" and are going to be disguarded anyway. (Similiar to, I suppose, how our bodies disguard about 50% of the fertilized eggs.)

Most (nix that ALL) arguments against prop 2 that I have heard (including this one) are "slippery-slope" arguments.

I may have been against the "same-sex marriage ban" (that actually was so broadly written that it dissolved straight common-law marriages and the rights of people within common-law marriages and made it extremely difficult to provide health insurance and other benefits to same-sex couples and their families) - but I didn't for a moment believe that banning same-sex marriage would lead to gays being shot in the streets whole-sale by government officials in black suits and mirror-shades.

Vote on the proposal based on what it WILL do - not some fantasy about what it *might* lead to in a distopian future. Too much of this election (in general) has been fueled by fear. Don't fall into it.

A human embryo, less than 14 days old, that never implants in a woman's uterus and never creates differentiated cells that become integrated organ systems and will never receives nurishment from a woman and will never gain the ability to exists as a person - is not a person. I have been pregnant and I have given birth and I have a son. My son is a person because of MY ROLE in his development inside me. To call a fertilized egg in a test tube a "baby" is implying that a mother is just an incubator and that she has no role in creating another human being other than donating genetic material.

To call a fertilized egg in a test tube a "baby" is to assert that a few undifferentiated cells have the same value as a person (such as my son). The last MRI my son had was very positive and he doesn't need surgery. They say if he was an older child whose brain was more developed before the Tahoe hit us, that his brain damage would have most likely had severe lasting effects.

No on prop 2 is FORCING people to throw away material that could be used for important research to help living, breathing human beings. To vote no on prop 2 is to make those human embryoes completely worthless - garbage to be thrown out in the trash.

[freydis]

Wow - ok, I have to admit I didn't bother reading the articles presented. Why? Because they were not relevant.

ALL that prop 2 does is allow fertilized eggs that would OTHERWISE BE DISPOSED OFF be used for research if they are DONATED.

Just like so many other prop 2's (why is it ALWAY 2?) there is tons of misinformation swimming around. I suggest that - before voting - read the language of the proposal.

It is my understanding that it explicitly states that those who donate CANNOT be compensated. So, the idea of "setting up a trade" is not a valid concern. Also, these fertilized eggs are created for in vitro fertilization at clinics. There is absolutely no plans for these cells to ever be implanted into a woman to possibly become a baby. They are "left over" and are going to be disguarded anyway. (Similiar to, I suppose, how our bodies disguard about 50% of the fertilized eggs.)

Most (nix that ALL) arguments against prop 2 that I have heard (including this one) are "slippery-slope" arguments.

I may have been against the "same-sex marriage ban" (that actually was so broadly written that it dissolved straight common-law marriages and the rights of people within common-law marriages and made it extremely difficult to provide health insurance and other benefits to same-sex couples and their families) - but I didn't for a moment believe that banning same-sex marriage would lead to gays being shot in the streets whole-sale by government officials in black suits and mirror-shades.

Vote on the proposal based on what it WILL do - not some fantasy about what it *might* lead to in a distopian future. Too much of this election (in general) has been fueled by fear. Don't fall into it.

A human embryo, less than 14 days old, that never implants in a woman's uterus and never creates differentiated cells that become integrated organ systems and will never receives nurishment from a woman and will never gain the ability to exists as a person - is not a person. I have been pregnant and I have given birth and I have a son. My son is a person because of MY ROLE in his development inside me. To call a fertilized egg in a test tube a "baby" is implying that a mother is just an incubator and that she has no role in creating another human being other than donating genetic material.

To call a fertilized egg in a test tube a "baby" is to assert that a few undifferentiated cells have the same value as a person (such as my son). The last MRI my son had was very positive and he doesn't need surgery. They say if he was an older child whose brain was more developed before the Tahoe hit us, that his brain damage would have most likely had severe lasting effects.

No on prop 2 is FORCING people to throw away material that could be used for important research to help living, breathing human beings. To vote no on prop 2 is to make those human embryoes completely worthless - garbage to be thrown out in the trash.

[Rev.Reverence]

Just like so many other prop 2's (why is it ALWAY 2?) there is tons of misinformation swimming around. I suggest that - before voting - read the language of the proposal.

Because "1" was taken...he..hehe.

Vote on the proposal based on what it WILL do - not some fantasy about what it *might* lead to in a distopian future. Too much of this election (in general) has been fueled by fear. Don't fall into it.

+1 Well said.

[pomba gira]

Well spoken Sinmantyx.

"Slippery slope" arguments should not cause us to discard an idea/practice out of hand. They should make us conscious of possible negative consequences, so we can put procedures in place to keep them from becoming reality.

[sinmantyx]

Well spoken Sinmantyx.

"Slippery slope" arguments should not cause us to discard an idea/practice out of hand. They should make us conscious of possible negative consequences, so we can put procedures in place to keep them from becoming reality.

Exactly! It's not good to completely ignore "possibilities" either.