stem cell research

[cacophony]

well here's something to consider:

i'm pro-choice. i support a woman's right to choose to carry or abort a pregnancy. however, i am against embryonic stem cell research. i'm also an atheist. chew on that for a second.

for me religion has nothing to do with it. god has nothing to do with it. and it doesn't necessarily rely on the argument that you're throwing away potential life because, as was stated earlier in the thread, stem cells from aborted fetuses would be discarded anyway.

i don't need a god figure to tell me to respect the creation of human life. i'm pro-choice but i'm better described as reluctantly pro-choice. i'm pro-choice because of the necessity to women's healtrh and human rights, not because i feel embryos are just silly little cellular clusters to be discarded without remorse. i see a fertilized egg is as special thing that would, if a billion and a half crucial developmental moments happen correctly, develop into a unique human being.

because of that, i have a hard time accepting the idea of using those discarded embryos for research. it smacks of a kind of cannibalism to me. now, i realize there's something contradictory in my view because i also support organ donation, which is essentially the same thing. however, with organ donation the donor had a choice in the matter before death. that's where i draw my moral line, i guess. it may help explain my view if i share the fact that i oppose the "bodies... the exhibition" show because the displayed cadavers were obtained from chinese prisons without the deceased's permission.

there's also the issue that abortions aren't the only source. people who participate in in vitro fertilization fertilize and store many eggs in the hopes that one will implant and gestate successfully. after their efforts are concluded, the extra fertilized eggs are discarded.

what's curious to me is that people use the in vitro example as though it's somehow a good thing, and therefore the argument for the discarded embryos' use in research is unrefutable. what makes no sense to me is how anyone can be pro-life but not against the in-vitro process of fertilizing and discarding eggs. it is essentially the same moral dilema. how many conservative right-wing pro-lifers participate in in vitro fertilization without a second thought? if you create 7 potential lives but only one gestates, you threw away 6 potential humans.

but i digress into abortion rights issues instead of stem cell research...

my point is, i'm gravely pro-choice, i don't support the practice of in vitro fertilization that results in an excess of fertilized eggs, and i don't support the notion of embryonic stem cell research. i am uncomfortable with the idea of my tax money going to support this research when private funding is available. i wouldn't expect to impose my view on the general public and try to block the research completely, but i would prefer not to be part of the funding and support.

and god plays no role in my opinion.


so what does that do for the arguments presented so far? what about those of us who aren't religious but morally object anyway?