dairygirl4u2c Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) when president bush vetoed the stem cell research debate. he had around his snowflake children. tehse were children were were adopted rather than discarded from fertility clinics. they were to show why embryonic research was wrong. but, they were only there as the result of embryonic research. now, i'd imagine that many times the growing embroy that was adopted would be growing wrong, and that they had to, or felt htey had to kill it... given the crude technoclogy. that would mean that the snowflake children are the result of justifying the mean, ie research for the children, arguably. so are their existance based on a morally unjustified existance? or is it just that the deformed tube to uterus cells should hve been left to grow or? what are your thoughts. Edited March 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prose Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 What? I can't understand at all what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476853' date='Mar 13 2008, 02:57 PM']when president bush vetoed the stem cell research debate. he had around his snowflake children.[/quote] LOL this is where I come for my kicks Edited March 13, 2008 by notardillacid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 are you asking if the "snowflake" children (I am not sure what this means) are existing morally? In other words, are you asking if the "snowflake" children are here immorally? Meg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 [size=1]Are the Snowflake Children kinda like the Flower Children? [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 (edited) My random guess would be "snowflake children" is saying that each embryo is an individual child, just as no two snowflakes are the same. Not positive that is what is meant here though. And, even though this is not a poll, I refuse to speculate... Mainly because I am confused at the question Edited March 14, 2008 by CatholicCid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bone _ Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 [quote name='CatholicCid' post='1477112' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:11 PM']My random guess would be "snowflake children" is saying that each embryo is an individual child, just as no two snowflakes are the same. Not positive that is what is meant here though. And, even though this is not a poll, I refuse to speculate... Mainly because I am confused at the question [/quote] I didn't even realize that there was a question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Translation? [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476853' date='Mar 13 2008, 01:57 PM']When President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Bill, he was accompanied by so-called "Snowflake" Children. These children, when they where still embryos where chosen to be implanted in a woman's womb, rather than being discarded by the fertility clinic. The presence of the Children at the vetoing of the bill was intended to show embryonic research is wrong. But these children are only alive because of embryonic research. I would imagine, that many times after a embryo is chosen, something goes wrong and the embryo is thought to be no longer viable. Which leads the clinics to believe they should terminate the embryo, but their judgement can be in error given the crudeness of the technology used to make such a decision. Are snowflake children the result of justifying the means of embryonic research, since they, when embryos where chosen above the perceived nonviable embryos? Is their existence unjustified based on the immorally of embryonic research? Or should have the perceived deformed embryos also been implanted into the womb and been left to grow? What are your thoughts?[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 dairy, the basic pro-life philosophy is that once it is an embryo, it deserves to be a human being. it doesn't matter how it came to be an embryo; it could have come to be an embryo through immoral rape, or through immoral in vitro fertilization. We advise against forming the babies, but once they are formed they should be saved. We would not advocate learning how to save them by killing other embryos, but we would advocate learning how to save them by trying to save other embryos even if sometimes it is unsuccessful (see the difference, you don't kill, you try to save, but it might die as a result of you trying to save it)... and once the knowledge is there on how to save them, even if it came through immoral means, the knowledge can be used. this does not justify the means, the means were still immoral. the ends can be good while the means remain immoral, that's what the ends not justifying the means is. there are all sorts of interesting debates surrounding the adoption of snowflake children... some Catholic moral theologians actually hold that to carry such a pregnancy to term actually disrupts the natural connection between parents by having pregnancy without sex to establish it. I disagree with them and think it fits in as just as moral as any adoption would be, but that is an interesting debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 (edited) well, it might not be wrong to have them in you and grow to term. but the risks of abnormalities taht might arise, might make it wrong to accept it in the first place. not to mention that they'd want to destroy the life if abnormal but. i think my initial post was flawed because i was saying... "should they grow the deformed life or kill it" when really the best option would have been to let them die, according to those who say teh ends do not ustify. i'd still wonder though, personally given my propensity to justify the means, whether it'd be better to kill soe that are going to die anyway, to preven the natural death of the out of vitro embryos. which is similar to how i'd proabbly do stem cell research since most of the cells are going to die anyway, and i see no chance of in vitro practices going anywhere.... and don't think the risk is great enough that embros would be created just to be destroyed for that purpose. hell, if i knew with certainty that groups of adults were going to die in a week anyway, and there was no one to tell what they thought on hte matter.... i wouldn't necessarily be opposed to killing them to save the lives of others. it sounds counterintuitive at first, but as a consequentialist, i don't see the difference between this and teh theoretical life being destroyed. (which i'd assume happens for hte sake of argument) this would prob be an analogy a antistem cell person would use to say why we shouldn't do it, but i guess it's not as effective for me. i might be more hesitant just because they deserve a little mroe respect as a full fledged adult as opposed to a newly created zygote, which arguably is just cells but. just saying. Edited March 14, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1477244' date='Mar 14 2008, 11:40 AM']hell, if i knew with certainty that groups of adults were going to die in a week anyway, and there was no one to tell what they thought on hte matter.... i wouldn't necessarily be opposed to killing them to save the lives of others. it sounds counterintuitive at first, but as a consequentialist, i don't see the difference between this and teh theoretical life being destroyed. (which i'd assume happens for hte sake of argument) this would prob be an analogy a antistem cell person would use to say why we shouldn't do it, but i guess it's not as effective for me. i might be more hesitant just because they deserve a little mroe respect as a full fledged adult as opposed to a newly created zygote, which arguably is just cells but. just saying.[/quote] The problem though is that this children living do not save/destroy another person's life. By killing them, you are not saving anyone else's life. And if someone were to say, "Well if you do kill the embryo and use the stem cells for research..." I'd say, there are skin stem cells out there now that do not require embryos. Furthermore, they are of a better "quality" than embryo stem cells. The people talk against this are those who want to continue embryonic stem cell research. As far as the answer to your original question, I agree with Alyouis (spelling off?). Babies one started at the moment of conception are babies: whether on the inside or on the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 If we hadn't started down that test-tube/IVF route in the first palce, we wouldn't be facing these dilemnas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1477613' date='Mar 15 2008, 02:05 PM']If we hadn't started down that test-tube/IVF route in the first palce, we wouldn't be facing these dilemnas.[/quote] Agreed. There have been so many moral problems stemming from this. Parents want to have children. They can basically pick out all the features from a magazine. Then they implant several fertilized eggs only for parents to say, "We have too many. Let's do a selective reduction." That is so gross to me. You know that you are going to have a baby and you basically "pick" from the children inside of you which ones you are going to kill and which ones you are going to choose to live. It is so gross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1477128' date='Mar 14 2008, 12:56 AM']Translation? [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476853' date='Mar 13 2008, 02:57 PM'] When President Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Bill, he was accompanied by so-called "Snowflake" Children. These children, when they where still embryos where chosen to be implanted in a woman's womb, rather than being discarded by the fertility clinic. The presence of the Children at the vetoing of the bill was intended to show embryonic research is wrong. But these children are only alive because of embryonic research. I would imagine, that many times after a embryo is chosen, something goes wrong and the embryo is thought to be no longer viable. Which leads the clinics to believe they should terminate the embryo, but their judgement can be in error given the crudeness of the technology used to make such a decision. Are snowflake children the result of justifying the means of embryonic research, since they, when embryos where chosen above the perceived nonviable embryos? Is their existence unjustified based on the immorally of embryonic research? Or should have the perceived deformed embryos also been implanted into the womb and been left to grow? What are your thoughts?[/quote] [/quote] You're like... a miracle worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 saying there are better options than the stem cells, if true, is a good argument in the sense that practically they are better and there are no need for the stem cells embryonic. but, in the sense that we might not know, and you're only offering speculation.... the alterantive arguemnt is simply a way of avoiding the fact that you'd rather have people die than destroy stem cells that are going to die very soon anyway. it at least can appear that that's what you're doing. perhaps you'd insist, and i'd guess you would, that it don't matter if there aren't better options... that we don't destroy them. but, it does appear on the surface that you're avoiding the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now