I posted the following question as my Facebook status.
What if science determined that the cells of down's syndrome children were the best cells for fighting cancer, and that it required the death of the child to "harvest" those cells?
Here's the comments:
Stacey Norris Hampton
I'm sure they'd find a way to do it, Hacim.
They'd do it, and the politicians would find ways of forcing it upon people, and the 9th circuit court would rule it a constitutional right for cancer patients and thus rule that killing those down's syndrome kids wasn't murder.
Um.... I don't know too many people who like killing kids, so it probably wouldn't do anything. I mean, right now there are thousands of people waiting for organ transplants. And, younger people's organs are the best for transplants. But, I don't see death squads going out to collect 18 yr old's organs. (at least not here in the states) Isn't this exactly the same?
Nope, b/c "science" hasn't ruled it yet. They already slaughter unborn children for stem cell research that is shown to be going nowhere when far better stem cell alternatives exist (and are ignored/sacrificed on the alter of political correctness), so this would just be another step in the same direction if it were true.
I don't think that abortions are done FOR stem cells. Whether you like it or not, currently abortions are performed, and the stem cells are normally discarded. Not using the cells means that the death of the baby was for nothing! If a baby is already dead, and their cells can help someone, then why not use them? Isn't this the same as a 3 year ... old dying and making a decision as to whether you'll donate their organs? Under your logic, we could be encouraging the killing of 3 year olds for their organs. (even if we used them to save another 3 year old) What if stem cells could help save other babies?
"I don't see death squads going out to collect 18 yr old's organs. (at least not here in the states) Isn't this exactly the same?" <-- But there are "death squads" (in lab coats) going out killing younger kids for their organs or "cells". My point is, the utilitarian argument for stem cell research seems to be that "science must triumph over emotions", why stop at fetuses? Why not take any less-than-useful people-type and harvest what we can? Micah Burke Keep in mind, the difference between a "kid" and a "fetus" is only a few months. Jamie Robertson Not just talking about that but about using embryos from IFV. That's the SAME THING: killing a child just to get his or her stem cells. Harvesting stem cells off of murdered children from abortion is just as bad, it's picking off the dead as if they were nothing anyway. Micah Burke "Not using the cells means that the death of the baby was for nothing!" <--- As opposed to killing babies FOR SOMETHING.
"If a baby is already dead, and their cells can help someone, then why not use them? Isn't this the same as a 3 year old dying and making a decision as to whether you'll donate their organs?" <-- No this is the purposeful taking of a human child's life and then harvesting their parts.
Stacey Norris Hampton
Jamie.. you mean IVF. I agree with that. When hubby and I were dealing with infertility the topic of "How far are we willing to go?" came up... we decided that IVF wasn't for us. Praise the Lord that we never got to that point anyway!
Look, if you know of anybody killing younger kids for their organs, you should inform the authorities, and I don't want to hear anything more about it because I don't want to be incriminated. Seriously, dude... murder is illegal, so what the hell are you talking about? If you are trying to thinly veil a debate about abortion... well, your veil ... is getting pretty thin. BEEP! Survey says: On average, 10 out of 10 people are against killing children. Why don't you just talk about what you actually want to talk about?
Yes, I meant IVF. Nothing against IVF if used correctly, it's what they do afterwards with the "unwanted" (yet fertilized anyway..... why?) embryos.
I think you've done an adequate job of making my case for me.