Hey, I have to go do a debate for school, and I was wondering if you can help me with this topic: -------------------------- Alright, the story goes like this. In England, there's this dying kid. (Let's just call him Billy) Billy is dying, but there is a new procedure that can save him. Billy's parents just need to go and make a new embryo and then use it to save him (More or less using Stem Cells) Some more info, the goverment is not against this procedure, they have the money etc. The Bottom line is this: Billy is dying, in order to save his life they need to take another life (Another problem, while there is a 100% chance that Billy will be saved, he will basically be on heavy medical care for the rest of his ) --------------------------- So, while I know a lot of people would be against this, I have the problem of having to support the procedure (I'm against it too) and I need help trying to get good points as to why the procedure should go on. This is more morally than anything else. The story is fiction, and don't bring any other variables, like the goverment not allowing the procedure to continue... or an alternative way to solve Billy's problem So far I've only got these two reasons: You have to save Billy because he is ill Doing this procedure will open up other types of research Don't reply if you're going to joke around or be a smartass. I need some good serious reasons. Also don't post saying anything besides being for the cause. I am against doing it as well but it's my job to be for it
doing this expierement would be a first of its kind and become medical history, kinda like what you said. i think that if you get somebody to willingly donate thier life to do this, then it shouldnt be that much of a problem
Yeah, but that's the problem, the life which is gonna be sacrificed is a fetus/embryo/whatever, so it's not willingly. Only thing I could say is that the parents chose to have it, so they can do whatever they want with it =|
First you would have to consider "Is an embryo a life." For your paper i would suggest taking the "it's not a life" side. Also, be specific what stage the embryo (I truthfully think it would be a fetus not an embryo) would be used from. The Earliest stage, 1-2 months, the embryo is just a blob of matter. It has no organs or brain. So that is something you can argue about. I am for stem cell research. If we can help some one who is going to die, and all we have to sacrifice is some sex, i think everyone would be happier. Plus I don't think a baby is living untill about the 6th month of pregency. Sry for the spelling mistakes etc. GL with your project.
Im aware of the topic i agree that from my perspective id do it if it could save my son's life i feel the sacrifice seeing as techniqually the embreyo is not alive yet so your not actually taking the life because without the mother the embreyo wouldnt survive
Billy is gonna be in bad conditions for the rest of his life? Screw that. Give him happiness and let him die. Or ask him
Firstly, an embryo is technically speaking a parasite (for lack of better words) and belongs to the host from there on until it is able to survive on its own (aka birth). An embryo is defined as: "An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching." It is stated in official government paperwork that if a spouse (for example) is disabled and in no way able to tell you what it wants, then the spouse and/or the parents are allowed to decide the fate of the person incapable of expressing what he wants (unless its a living will, etc.). This is the same case of the embryo, it is basically a disabled being. It is not capable of telling you if it wants to live or not, nor is it capable of living without you. If you choose to remove it, that is your choice, technically it IS a part of you. Therefore your choice is what matters in its life. Are you willing to sacrifice a part of you that you dont need to save another being with 100% certainty from death? By sharing a part of your life that has no harm to you other than purely emotional, you can save this childs life with a guarenteed certainty. The morality of the situation is whether youd rather give new life or rebirth life. Either way it is virtually an eye for an eye. You sacrifice a part of your life for the life of another, or you let another die and let part of you live on. As far as technicality is concerned, there is no fault in this. As I said, its not even a question of morality, its a question of life and death and gaurenteed scientific improvement that could one day perhaps even recreate the fetus/embryo (cloning) if you allow this procedure to go through. The pros greatly out weigh the cons. Pro-life, or pro-self? OR, heres one: The chances the baby is premature, or techincalities happen during birth are great. Millions of babies are born prematurely, thousands of babies die from technicalities such as the umbelical cord wrapping around their neck and suffocating to death during birth. Where one procedure has no risk at all, the other has loads of risk. The risk of an unhealthy child who cannot live long and prosper, the risk of the baby dying, the risk of deformations, the risks of premature birth resulting in death or weakness in the babies life, the possibilities are endless for birth defects.
Hell you better put up a good arguement. I don't want to die. (for those slow people that's my name {billy}) I would help but honestly I'm dead set against it. I couldn't think of anything except there is a possibilty that the embryo of the child might die during labor. Where there is a 100% chance that Billy will live. That's the only thing I can come up with.
the embryo or whatever could grow up to cure aids not likely but id like to see that, i do feel bad for the kid though, i say use an embryo from a monkey
Who ever wants to kill a embryo. In my book should get shot and or hung or they way jesus died or wait not the way jesus died cause your not worthy enough so if i had to decide billy wouldnt be alive right now cause killing somebody to save somebody when that somebody didnt do anything to deserve to die before he/she had sex lol j/k i dont know what i would say or do in a sistuation like this
Depends who's life it is, if it's an old man's who is expected to die in a day or two, and wishes someone else to live, or someone who has just givin up on life, that can probably be arranged, however, their loved ones will be sad, try to take their places ect. so what would happen is Billy may not survive through this treatment, he may only die faster, and be losing two lives in a sad attempt to save one. This is like one of those lose-lose gambaling situations, you can try so very hard, but end up paying double the price, in this case two lives. Not really I situation I'd like to be in, but an interesting predicament all the same.
Lmao. Most awesome post I have ever seen. Also, would this be considered mercy killing if you killed the embryo?
Usually debate topics that go against moral judgements are really hard to get strong points, but now in this case regarding stem cells and a kid in danger, its pretty much a dead end.
Arg, wow that one is hard. I would say looking up some ABORTION sites and stuff and see how their reasoning of their procedures and try to apply their reasoning to yours.
