If the proceedure does not involve the Child inside a Mothers body. You go right ahead, but not growing any for of human life that could feel pain or even be callewd a baby in any way. A mother become with child, after anytime where it could be detected in anyway. It is a child, it is a child. Now there is a thin line between here of the 2 as life or not. So Leave Mother out of the Picture and go right ahead to a point.
What about the 'benefit' of allowing the newly conceived life to be born into the world? What contribution might that person not make? Isn't this the point - that every human being from the moment of conception is unique and priceless - not an object to be used and discarded?
but death is just as natural as life. You may not realize this but people as well as any living creature on this earth feed off the living in order to survive. We don't eat rocks, we eat meat, and plants which are living things made of cells and not matter. I truly understand why this is wrong, but I strongly feel that benifits outweigh the doubts.
The time-line for human life begins at conception. To 'kill the potential' or to 'transfer the life', as you put it, amounts to the same thing surely - Death.
If thats what it takes... its not like scientists are killing babies or actual people (out of womb). They are simply killing the potential of what that person could be. I think of it as transfering life into another person so that they may be healed.
What a great video.
I'm writing my exam on this subject and this video really helped me out.
thank you very much for this upload :D
MrJacobElias 10 months ago
Great Who teach the human what he did not knew
TheRedtiger14 1 year ago
First I'm a 110% Born Again Christan see here.
So my View point.
If the proceedure does not involve the Child inside a Mothers body. You go right ahead, but not growing any for of human life that could feel pain or even be callewd a baby in any way. A mother become with child, after anytime where it could be detected in anyway. It is a child, it is a child. Now there is a thin line between here of the 2 as life or not. So Leave Mother out of the Picture and go right ahead to a point.
turtle4aire 2 years ago
You only need 1 embryo to spawn an entire master line for millions of treatments.
EmmeJayKay 2 years ago
There are advances which no longer need embryos to be destroyed so that cells can be harvested :)
AnkurRC 2 years ago
What about the 'benefit' of allowing the newly conceived life to be born into the world? What contribution might that person not make? Isn't this the point - that every human being from the moment of conception is unique and priceless - not an object to be used and discarded?
LegioMariae 2 years ago
but death is just as natural as life. You may not realize this but people as well as any living creature on this earth feed off the living in order to survive. We don't eat rocks, we eat meat, and plants which are living things made of cells and not matter. I truly understand why this is wrong, but I strongly feel that benifits outweigh the doubts.
phantomx793 2 years ago
The time-line for human life begins at conception. To 'kill the potential' or to 'transfer the life', as you put it, amounts to the same thing surely - Death.
How can this be right?
LegioMariae 2 years ago
If thats what it takes... its not like scientists are killing babies or actual people (out of womb). They are simply killing the potential of what that person could be. I think of it as transfering life into another person so that they may be healed.
ZeroG004 2 years ago
I really wish stem cell research was continued. I would of helped alot of people. I don't care how immoral it was.
ZeroG004 2 years ago