The plot thickens

[oumahexi]

I'm wondering if there is a link to the governement's recent vote to keep abortion laws at 24 weeks and their vote to allow hybrid embryotic research?

Maybe I'm just confused, but, while I don't agree with abortion, I do agree with the latter, if this kind of research can help prevent / cure diseases such as Parkinsons; Diabetes and even MS, why ever not? There are many women willing to donate eggs for the research and if it's a hybrid it's not human, is it? Surely this, then gives us a "get out of jail free" card, after all, if we are against using hybrids for clinical research then how can we condone the use of animals for the same research?

As usual, I can see both sides of the argument, but I wonder what others think ?

 

[EmmaJane]

I tend to agree. Of course there is no guarantee that this type of research will produce the answers we hope it will but I personally think it worth trying. Also as I understand it there are guarantees that these embryos are destroyed at a very early stage so I would not class them as human.

 

[oumahexi]

Also as I understand it there are guarantees that these embryos are destroyed at a very early stage so I would not class them as human.

Exactly. But then why do we draw the line at human? I've been vegetarian most of my life and people keep saying to me "but a carrot was alive until you pulled it out the ground". Good point, but we each have our lines in the sand. The trick is to find a line that most people agree on. There are always going to be people that will take things to the extreme.

I'm not disagreeing that this is or isn't human life, just playing devils advocate.

 

[oumahexi]

Who knows Emma, we might actually manage to find a cure for the cold as well!!!

 

[EmmaJane]

Who knows Emma, we might actually manage to find a cure for the cold as well!!!

If only…. I would be willing to become part goat at the moment!!!!

My 10 year old daughter was watching a news item about this. I tried to explain it to her in terms she would understand. For her it was very straight forward if it was just a “blob” they were going to experiment with and it would make people better then what was the problem. If only everything was as straight forward as the mind of a 10 years old.

 

[oumahexi]

If only…. I would be willing to become part goat at the moment!!!!

I work beside someone like that

My 10 year old daughter was watching a news item about this. I tried to explain it to her in terms she would understand. For her it was very straight forward if it was just a “blob” they were going to experiment with and it would make people better then what was the problem. If only everything was as straight forward as the mind of a 10 years old.

It should be, shouldn't it?

 

[EmmaJane]

It should be, shouldn't it?

I guess…. Things just seem to get more complicated as you get older.

 

[EmmaJane]

Yes, we stop seeing the world in black and white and all the wonderful colours flood through. Confusing? Yes, but hey, it's so much more interesting.

Quite true…. I’m all for life being more interesting

 

[Fifty2One]

I'm wondering if there is a link to the governement's recent vote to keep abortion laws at 24 weeks and their vote to allow hybrid embryotic research?

Maybe I'm just confused, but, while I don't agree with abortion, I do agree with the latter, if this kind of research can help prevent / cure diseases such as Parkinsons; Diabetes and even MS, why ever not? There are many women willing to donate eggs for the research and if it's a hybrid it's not human, is it? Surely this, then gives us a "get out of jail free" card, after all, if we are against using hybrids for clinical research then how can we condone the use of animals for the same research?

As usual, I can see both sides of the argument, but I wonder what others think ?

I disagree with using embryos and animals for any sort of clinical research.
I do support the notion that all of this research could be performed on lesser beings such as persons who have been incarcerated for violent crimes. I also support harvesting organs from criminals as redemption for crimes that have cost a life or lives.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Most criminals don't make good stem cell research subjects (since they're typically neither babies nor pregnant with babies). And stem cells are the magic type of cells that are supposed to move medicine forward a hundred years.

 

[oumahexi]

I disagree with using embryos and animals for any sort of clinical research.
I do support the notion that all of this research could be performed on lesser beings such as persons who have been incarcerated for violent crimes. I also support harvesting organs from criminals as redemption for crimes that have cost a life or lives.

I can see where you're coming from there, but what if your child did something really bad? Sometimes people just "snap", and, while the should be held accountable, how far should we take that? I like the idea of 3 strikes and your out though, because, face it, if you "snap" three times you're obviously on the wrong track for positive contribution to society.

There are certain areas I would not venture into. Morally I will not purchase make up that has been tested on animals...

 

[Rabbie]

I disagree with using embryos and animals for any sort of clinical research.
I do support the notion that all of this research could be performed on lesser beings such as persons who have been incarcerated for violent crimes. I also support harvesting organs from criminals as redemption for crimes that have cost a life or lives.

There are cases where people are wrongly convicted of crimes and it can take many years for them to prove their innocence so I would be opposed to using people for medical research unless they give their consent.

 

[Fifty2One]

I can see where you're coming from there, but what if your child did something really bad? Sometimes people just "snap", and, while the should be held accountable, how far should we take that? I like the idea of 3 strikes and your out though, because, face it, if you "snap" three times you're obviously on the wrong track for positive contribution to society.
There are certain areas I would not venture into. Morally I will not purchase make up that has been tested on animals...

Sorry but if you "SNAP" and kill or maim someone then your number is up, might help the problem with repeat offenders and people might just use their brains and align their moral compass on a moral basis rather than a personal agenda.

There are cases where people are wrongly convicted of crimes and it can take many years for them to prove their innocence so I would be opposed to using people for medical research unless they give their consent.

I dont think the victim of the crime gave their consent to be a victim. If you look at the ratio of just convictions versus wrongly convicted you will discover how really rare that event occurrs. It will deter people from just being violent and dangerous because the reprocussions are more severe than just a vacation at the expense of the taxpayers...
...and if they are wrong then OOOOPS but at least they gave their life to save one or more lives.

 

[Fifty2One]

Most criminals don't make good stem cell research subjects (since they're typically neither babies nor pregnant with babies). And stem cells are the magic type of cells that are supposed to move medicine forward a hundred years.

They are only using stem cells for a lot of the research because they dont currently have an endless supply of organs to harvest cells or transplant.

 

[Rabbie]

I dont think the victim of the crime gave their consent to be a victim. If you look at the ratio of just convictions versus wrongly convicted you will discover how really rare that event occurrs. It will deter people from just being violent and dangerous because the reprocussions are more severe than just a vacation at the expense of the taxpayers...
...and if they are wrong then OOOOPS but at least they gave their life to save one or more lives.

So you are clearly in favour of introducing the death penalty or is it still in use in Canada. Which offences should it be brought back for since you seem to be casting your net rather wider than just murder. I find it difficult to reconcile your position in this thread with your views on abortion in another thread but I am sure you can clarify this

 

[Fifty2One]

So you are clearly in favour of introducing the death penalty or is it still in use in Canada. Which offences should it be brought back for since you seem to be casting your net rather wider than just murder. I find it difficult to reconcile your position in this thread with your views on abortion in another thread but I am sure you can clarify this

Sadly there is no death penalty in Canada because there have been overturned convictions and they are worried that perhaps they might put the wrong person to death.
I would suggest that murder would be good for 100% organ donation and lesser violent crimes could be a reduced harvest based on the severity of the criminal intent.
I am still against abortion because it is not like the baby being murdered did anything wrong.

 

[statsman]

What if they could prove the baby had a criminal gene? Who knows, maybe in the future we'll have genetic screening for every birth to prevent such people being born into our eutopian societies?

Interesting concept, punishing people for things they might do rather than for crimes they have actually commited.

Just because a person has a genetic makeup that pre-disposes them to a life of crime doesn't mean they are going to become a criminal. They could become a doctor and find the cure for cancer.

When this gene test becomes a fact, maybe we should get some DNA from some of the great world figures and see how many of them were supposed to be ditch diggers and became statesmen and women instead.

 

[MrsGorilla]

Interesting concept, punishing people for things they might do rather than for crimes they have actually commited.

Wasn't there a movie made about that with Tom Cruise?

 

[Pauldohert]

Wasn't there a movie made about that with Tom Cruise?

Is that the one where cos they can't be bothered with dialog, plot etc so they have tom running slow motion down a road for 2 minutes?

 

[MrsGorilla]

Is that the one where cos they can't be bothered with dialog, plot etc so they have tom running slow motion down a road for 2 minutes?

Possibly.

Here's the link. I found it on IMDB.