Abortion for research is GOOD???? (2420 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: -0.68 on 173 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by DCWoody (View user info) at 2006-07-20 05:15:15 EDT
I don't remember ever agreeing with George Bush before, its a strange feeling.
Its no secret on this site that I'm against abortion, I've also said that if I become Prime Minister I will respect the morals of the majority I represent, and not try to force my own morals on others on this issue.
But fuck me what is wrong with you people?
Stem Cell research sound like it could lead to a lot of good shit. But do not get the stem cells from embryos.
Lethal experiments on humans is what the Nazis did for fucks sake!
I can't think of much more to write in this post, I simply cannot comprehend how anyone could accept this, it is literally the old 'would you kill an innocent child to cure cancer...how about two, or 100, or 10,000?' question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by pirate_pipi (user info) at 2006-07-19 16:22:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
Where did they find the "moral boundry" this is supposed to cross? Up their arses?
Surely the benefits to millions, as a result of stem cell research, push the balence in favour of doing it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does no-one else here not think there is a problem with this statement.
Have you people ever heard the phrase 'slippery slope'?
JESUS CHRIST!!!
NB: I am an Athiest.
User Reviews
Submitted by Poots (user info) at 2006-07-23 13:02:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Why did I +2 this?
Submitted by Poots (user info) at 2006-07-23 13:02:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*though*
Submitted by Poots (user info) at 2006-07-23 13:01:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
being an atheist doesn't mean you don't care about man kind. That is a common misconception about atheist thou. Kind of like how everybody thinks that christians care about other people and not take an hour to get dressed for church so that everyone will say "my did you see how mr./mrs. soandso looked in those snappy hagar slacks" or whateve I don't believe it's about that but it is. Oh and that they never judge lest they be judged. And this one will make you laugh do unto others as they would have others do unto themselves.
Also the eternal judgement you speak of is one of man and his self it's a reflection of every man as to how they live thier lives. You really don't need a religion to crutch yourself up with to have respect enough for man/woman and have the intelligence to know the cosequences of a man/woman are bound on his/her shoulders. Where would religion be if you were locked in a cell. They would besmirge your name is what I would bet and leave you on your own. Except if they were going to fry you. You would get last rights and fanatical idiots outside the prison chanting kumbaya.
Abortion happens everyday in america why not use them to help us. If I was an aborted baby that happened to help save the human race I would be damned proud and dead.
Do aborted babies go to heaven?
Submitted by Happily_Agnostic (user info) at 2006-07-23 12:27:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You fucking guy. Your a tumor is what you are.
Submitted by someone (user info) at 2006-07-23 02:02:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If you are an athiest, (which you claim) then you believe (again I'm assuming, as such is logic) in no moral judgement. Which (if I'm correct) there are no consequences for your 'sins' (abortion in fact may fall under 'said' sin)...but (and yes I'm using that damned logic again) you....OPPOSE something that may or may not have moral consequences, which (being an athiest keep in mind) doesn't have any eternal judgement?
gotcha!
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-07-22 11:01:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-21 19:48:21 (#)
Ranking: -2
Issy, you didn't point out "That statement about embryos is idiotic" or anything like that.
You made the general point "Bart's an idiot" or whatever.
And since Bart mentioned Halliburton and the Vets in his reply, well really now, should I have just assumed you weren't talking about them?"
listen, you fat retarded fuckshit. i called him an idiot because he said an idiotic thing. pretty fucking simple, isn't it. you can make all the assumptions in the world you want, just know that doing so makes you an absolute moron.
the legality of the issue has nothing to do with what i said. neither does legal viability(which is not proof, Michelin man, since it's extremely case-by-case). neither does using embryos for stem cell research -the fuck are you yammering about? 'but you're ok with that right?' what the hell. you're insane. i never said anything about any of that. infertile couples, medical science, alzheimers, your fucking relatives. I DON'T FUCKING CARE. AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT SHIT NOBODY ELSE MENTIONED. YOU MAKE ME RESPECT ETS.
Submitted by r1nce (user info) at 2006-07-22 03:00:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Let's see...
Woman does not want baby. Gets abortion. Tiny batch of cells gets destroyed instead of used for potentially life saving research because of conservative legislation.
You can't see anything wrong with that you fucking backward hic-tard?
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2006-07-21 20:37:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Just thought id -2 this again
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-21 19:48:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Issy, you didn't point out "That statement about embryos is idiotic" or anything like that.
You made the general point "Bart's an idiot" or whatever.
And since Bart mentioned Halliburton and the Vets in his reply, well really now, should I have just assumed you weren't talking about them?
And he's right. An embryo is NOT a human being, legally. A fetus that has a chance to survive outside of the womb is legally considered a human being.
Want proof?
If you were to kill a woman who was pregnant with a fetus that *could* have survuved outside of the womb, you may be legally charged with 2 counts of murder.
If the fetus *could NOT* have survived outside of the womb, you can NOT be charged with 2 counts of murder.
And as pointed out earlier, all of the embryos that would be used in stem cell research would be DESTROYED if they're not used in research.
But you're OK with that, right?
Couple can't have kids, has a total of 30-50 embryos created for in-vetro. (fuck all if I spelled it wrong)
Now, they use 5, and become pregnant. That leaves 25-45 ferlilized embryos sitting in liquid nitrogen, waiting to be destroyed. No use for 'em. No one will be comeing back for them. They're just going to be destroyed.
You're against using them for medical science?
People die from Alzheimers, Parkinsons and any other number of genetic diseases that might be cured using advancements that could be made in stem cell research, and that's OK, right?
Because instead of using those embryos slated for destruction, they were vaporized in a bio-waste facility, and that's noble and morally correct, right?
You ever have a relative with Alzheimer's, man?
Have you ever seen what that disease does to a person, in real life?
You ever have a loved one become unable to recognize you?
Yeah, it's not great by any stretch.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2006-07-21 19:22:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Too tired to contribute to the argument, but from the bit I read, this post has been righteously torn asunder. Kudos, uber.
Submitted by Mrdurden24 (user info) at 2006-07-21 18:54:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you have got to be one of the dumbest people alive...for the love of god, please dont ever decide to breed..we are trying to weed out people like you from the global gene pool
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-07-21 14:43:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Not even a shred of a decent argument present here.
An embryo is an embryo.
Do you call an egg a chicken?
I call it a fucking omlet.
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2006-07-21 13:10:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
why not -
http://stuff.ubersite.com/106315575115020917/1/foamcl.JPG
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2006-07-21 13:08:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
making 'me' feel
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2006-07-21 13:07:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Screw you for making feel guilty for killing all those little babies when I was home late at night...
by myself
with nothing else better to do
Submitted by TonyMontana (user info) at 2006-07-21 06:41:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:52:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
That ship, as they say has done sailed. The embryos in question were created as a part of fertility treatments. Not using them for stem cell research just means that they will be discarded as medical waste. In short, by hopping on your anti-choice soapbox you are, it would seem barking up the wrong tree. The real "enemy" are all those couples out there who for what ever reason are unable to conceive a child on their own and turn to medical science.
but thanks for once again sticking your nose into something you know precious little about and dictating to others what they should or should not do about an issue that could not possible for biological reasons be something that you personally have to deal with
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loki is absolutely right. This has absolutely nothing to do with what you idiots consider "human" and what isn't. I am a staunch pro-life advocate, except in instances where the life of the mother is threatened. I believe an unborn baby is indeed human because it possesses the potential to develop through the stages of maturation which define humanity. It is simply in the beginning portion of that process. A baby is simply further along that process, and an old man is towards the end. The whole concept of debating the humanity of an unborn child is just some bullshit that was concocted to make selfish, irresponsible whores who want an abortion not feel guilty about themselves.
Submitted by TonyMontana (user info) at 2006-07-21 06:30:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
the stem cells that are purported to be used are not harvested from embryos that are grown with an intent to extract stem cells from them....the stem cells come from embryos that are scheduled for destruction. So you can either throw away the embryos...or use them for research. I don't see how this is a difficult decision.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-07-21 05:05:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
this is why, jgreening:
"An embryo is not a human being - it's an embryo. If it were a human being, it would be called 'a human being'."
who the fuck said anything about Halliburton? it's ok though, keep parroting nonsensical trivia. and you make fun of ets, psh.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-21 04:27:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I get the impression you lot completely missed the point of this post, I never suggested anyone was going to advertise for abortions. I'm pretty sure I've already denied this several times.
I'll try to respond better later, busy busy busy.
Submitted by Life101 (user info) at 2006-07-21 01:40:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-07-21 00:42:48 (#)
Ranking: -2
George W. Bush stood on a stage and kissed a bunch of little kids who were from women who were "artificially impregnated" and then talked about how each of them was precious and that the world couldn't possibly go on if one of them weren't here and instead thousands of other REAL LIVING HUMAN BEINGS were living without parkinson's disease or spinal cord damage.
Where's the morality in using little kids as political props on stage to support your ass backwards witchcraft oriented perspective on the world? See how cute the pretty little kiddie is? He's really really cute, so that that means stem cells are bad. If you support stem cell research, you want me to kill this child right here which will probably end up happening anyway when his corporate employer absconds with his 401k plan funds and he ends up working at Wal-Mart with no health insurance. SHIT!
So now we have all these cute little kids who will grow up and die from cancer, aids, parkinson's, liver disease, or any one of a host of diseases that we could be fighting by funding stem cell research, but that research would be immoral. DON'T YOU SEE MY ROCK SOLID LOGIC?? Oh, and pay no attention to the fact that we just bombed more innocent Iraqi civilians than there ever have been embryotic stem cell clusters because the lives of brown people mean nothing when weighed against embryos that could become white people if they hadn't already been aborted. AND ABORTION IS BAD! TERRORISTS! DUCT TAPE YOUR HOUSE!
Here's a solution to the whole problem... only allow research from Iraqi embryos. Chances are we were going to kill or torture them anyway, so let's just save everyone the effort and take the embryos and use them to cure white people diseases.
Vote Republican!
------------------
took the words straight outa my mouth
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-21 01:24:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
The gift of wisdom is the ability to weigh those things that are more important against those things that are less important and knowing which is which. One of the burdons of knowledge is the morality of its implementation.
Denying those that live and walk the earth in suffering the promise of a better tomorrow because we are afraid that God, in all his mercy, would look badly upon us for endeavoring to help them using the cells of a life that has not been blessed yet with the gifts of sight, speech, hearing, walking, and feeling is to underestimate the Wisdom of God and His capacity for understanding the moral dilemmas of human life.
What I'm more concerned with is the obvious hypocisy in forbidding the perceived moral infringement of stem cell research, whose ultimate aim is one of goodness, while bringing forth wholesale death and detruction in other lands in an effort to plunder wealth. This is one of the classic diversions that have marked modern leaders in civilized nations. While wearing a thick mask of morality and integrity, in their hearts they are cold as serpent's blood. How they can sleep at night knowing the depths of their own lies and crimes against the soul of humanity, I'll never know.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b168/electrictoothsyndrome/not_spare_parts2.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b168/electrictoothsyndrome/not_spare_parts.jpg
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-07-21 01:23:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Was I too verbose?
Submitted by erosion_rules (user info) at 2006-07-21 01:17:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Guess who completely ignored the issue!
Christ, the issue of stem cell research is taking fetuses that were ALREADY ABORTED for research. It's not like the scientists are saying "Dude, let's abort this chick's baby and fuck with its' genes!"
They take aborted fetuses..and test on them, that is all. If we were to follow this anti-stem cell research thing based solely on that, we'd also have to eliminate all doctors, because we wouldn't be able to test on cadavers.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-07-21 01:14:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You seem like a reasonable bloke. To answer your incredulous questions in the post, it's a simple proposition when put to someone like me who respects life as an entity when it hits the point when it becames self-aware, capable of thought etc, as opposed to a mass of cells at differing stages of physical development. The closest thing on that chart to the criteria at which I would draw the line (as to when it becomes a moral issue) is the development of the central nervous system, which occurs quite a while after it would have been relevant to this issue.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-07-21 00:42:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
George W. Bush stood on a stage and kissed a bunch of little kids who were from women who were "artificially impregnated" and then talked about how each of them was precious and that the world couldn't possibly go on if one of them weren't here and instead thousands of other REAL LIVING HUMAN BEINGS were living without parkinson's disease or spinal cord damage.
Where's the morality in using little kids as political props on stage to support your ass backwards witchcraft oriented perspective on the world? See how cute the pretty little kiddie is? He's really really cute, so that that means stem cells are bad. If you support stem cell research, you want me to kill this child right here which will probably end up happening anyway when his corporate employer absconds with his 401k plan funds and he ends up working at Wal-Mart with no health insurance. SHIT!
So now we have all these cute little kids who will grow up and die from cancer, aids, parkinson's, liver disease, or any one of a host of diseases that we could be fighting by funding stem cell research, but that research would be immoral. DON'T YOU SEE MY ROCK SOLID LOGIC?? Oh, and pay no attention to the fact that we just bombed more innocent Iraqi civilians than there ever have been embryotic stem cell clusters because the lives of brown people mean nothing when weighed against embryos that could become white people if they hadn't already been aborted. AND ABORTION IS BAD! TERRORISTS! DUCT TAPE YOUR HOUSE!
Here's a solution to the whole problem... only allow research from Iraqi embryos. Chances are we were going to kill or torture them anyway, so let's just save everyone the effort and take the embryos and use them to cure white people diseases.
Vote Republican!
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-07-21 00:34:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dead fetuses aren't tight enough.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-21 00:34:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No, OCG, it's not "defending BartBart"
I've been away from Uber for 90% of this posts's reviews, and you know me, I tend to stir up shit when people pointlessly rip someone or something that I agree with.
It could have been loki, or Munkey, or Teeph or any number of other people I've done the same thing for.
Just happens that Bart had a few statements I agree with (and have said so in the past) and dipshit threw down "you're an idiot" or whatever the fuck he said.
But fuck it, you're a inbred troglodyte anyway who's only giddy-up in life is trying (yes, only trying) to make himself feel bigger on teh intraweb.
So you can fuck a dead fetus for all I care.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-07-21 00:26:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And once again, Greening jumps in to defend "Bart-bart" from those who would criticize the master...
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-21 00:20:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Issy, how's Bart a moron?
Bush says it's immoral to use embryos from fertility treatments for stem cell research.
Yet it's been proven many times over, Halliburton gets PHAT no-bid contracts left and right from the government.
Even the GAO has said that the contracts given to Halliburton in Iraq were almost 2x... TWO TIMES... more expensive than what the contract would have been in a free-bid system.
And the health care for Vets.
You think they should NOT get it, then?
I mean, they only fought for the country and all... pssshhhyeah, why should THEy get care, right?
Fucktard.
Submitted by Jorge_Burrito (user info) at 2006-07-21 00:09:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
People argue that is a slippery slope if you allow stem cell research but I argue it is just as slippery slope the other way. Will soon a woman be called a murderer every time she has a period because she is killing a potential life by not becoming pregnant? Every time I masturbate I am killing millions of humans...I feel so ashamed. I think you get the idea.
I agree with those that state that they are going to be thrown away anyways so they might as well be put to good use. If you have problems with the morality of stem cells, you really have problems with fertility clinics that have this barbaric practice of creating all these excess and unwanted embryos in the first place.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2006-07-20 23:14:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You are arguing two different issues here. You are intertwining the two arguments which
weakens your point.
I can see your argument if they advertise for women to have abortions for the purpose
of using a fetus for research. I could see if they had fetus factories to make them in bulk.
That would be going too far.
But they're taking the medical waste and using that for research. It would be thrown
away anyway. Put it to good use!
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-07-20 22:59:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Red? What critical mass? At what point is it unacceptable to kill them for medical research?
__________________________
I'd say at least 18 years after the fact.
I'm a big fan of abortion up the age of 18.
that's just my opinion.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-07-20 22:41:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
bart's a fucking moron. i guess you couldn't expect much more from someone who'd create ubersite voluntarily
Submitted by satchel (user info) at 2006-07-20 20:27:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-20 20:16:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Holy shit.
Bart with a -2 AND explaining it.
Wow.
Submitted by I_love_Kracka (user info) at 2006-07-20 20:14:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
opps.....correct rank
Submitted by I_love_Kracka (user info) at 2006-07-20 20:09:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I will sell my eggs to the highest bidder
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-07-20 20:03:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
An embryo is not a human being - it's an embryo. If it were a human being, it would be called "a human being".
The government does not recognize embryos as living creatures with rights. They don't count as tax breaks for pregnant mothers and they don't get social security numbers, so I don't see what right the president has to say that THIS of all things is a moral issue.
You want a moral issue, how about giving veterans the health benefits they were promised or not stealing billions of tax dollars for the Haliburton corporation.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-20 18:55:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Here is the biggest thing that you missed, Woody, and fack all I'm not reading the 130+ reviews to see if it's been said.
I'd venture to guess that 99%+ of the embryos used for Stem Cell research would come from WASTE EMBRYOS from fertilization clinics.
Funny, Bush has ZERO problem throwing those waste embryos away, but he DAMN SURE doesn't want to use them for science.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-07-20 18:25:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*please insert the word "want" between the words "they" and "to."
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-07-20 18:24:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Oh for fuck's sake. The embryos are only days old. DAYS. They haven't even developed organs yet. That's why they to research THESE particular cells, because they are base cells that haven't begun developing into organs.
You seem like reasonable guy, so I assume this post hinges on your personal concept of when life begins. I'm not rating this negatively simply because you disagree. I am, however, rating it negatively because I've seen this issue argued way better than a knee-jerk "OMIGOD IT'S JUST LIKE TEH NAZIS!!!" reaction.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-07-20 18:20:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What I find really fucked up. Is that all these people are fighting about fucking stem cells in the states, while supporting wars that murder tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Pro life my fucking ass.
Submitted by The_Cyst_Master (user info) at 2006-07-20 18:14:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It's edible at any point of the pregnancy, really.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-07-20 18:06:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Where else do you propose we get them from?
Research is already being conducted into extracting stem cells from grown humans and manipulating them to have the same properties as embryonic ones.
Maybe you missed something. The newest proposal was to extract stem cells from embryos in fertility clinics. These were embryos which--get this--ARE GOING TO BE DISCARDED ANYWAY. And do you know what happens to an embryo when its "discarded?" IT DIES. I'm as against abortion as anybody here, but if they're being trashed anyway, they might as well be put to good use. Sacrifice for the good of humanity and all that bullshit we talk about.
Fuck I hate you all.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-07-20 18:01:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
you don't know anything
Submitted by Feety (user info) at 2006-07-20 17:32:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm between 9 and 10 on that scale up there
rockin'
Submitted by dr_weazel (user info) at 2006-07-20 17:13:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And anyone who uses fucking pathetically emotive words like "murder" when talking about abortion should been aborted.
Submitted by dr_weazel (user info) at 2006-07-20 17:05:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Please die in a particularly hot fire you fucking stupid bucket of horse-cum.
The only thing I hate more than anti-abortionists is fucking religious cunts. Most of the time they're one and the same.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-07-20 15:56:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
uhg.
I am all for meaningful conversations... but both sides are absolutely convinced that the other is wrong. Debate is a waste of time because fundamentally it's pert near impossible to successfully change someone's mind about their morality.
Christ, its tough enough to get most people to change their long distance provider- you think prolonged discussion about sucking the fetal matter out of a uterus will ever effectively change anyone's mind?
It's retarded.
The rare occasions where people actually >might< change their moral position is only after some tragic and horrific life altering event. You can be damn sure most people would think differently about abortion when faced with the result of a full term pregnancy conceived through torture and gang rape. I just bet your entire opinion on the death penalty and the divine in general would likely be shattered after learning your child was molested by Father Tom.
Morals are learned. Ingrained. Part of our unconscious collective and not subject to change because of a sweet ass 2 for 1 abortion deal at the clinic every 1st Tuesday of the month.
We as a Society need to grow a nut-sack, draw a line in the sand and tell everyone to enforce their own personal Morals and Fuck off with your insecurity.
You don't want your kids to grow up and have abortions? Fine. Do your absolute best to teach them your own personal sense of morality you lazy fucking cunts. Educate people and let THEM make the choice.
If its something people fundamentally disagree with- they won't choose to get it done now will they?
Simple as that. Personal morality is just that. Personal.
Options are society's only real way to satisfy all of the unique assholes we have contributing to it. Moderating those options is pragmatic- forcibly limiting them is foolish.
But it IS good to see people at least talking about stuff... as utterly unproductive as it might be.
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-07-20 14:27:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Abort YOU!
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-07-20 14:24:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
youre not getting the stem cells from embryos, youre getting them from blastula (ie a non differentiated mass of around 150 cells about 3-4 days after fertilization that are similar to any other somatic cell in the body)
youre not killing a life, the blastula has no organs, no organ systems, no brain, no prefrontal cortex, reasoning and problem solving center of the brain (the first electrical impulses are sent during the 21st week after fertilization)
secondly, you are using fertilized eggs that have been rejected by the clinic for one of a number of reasons.
there is no fucking reason why these stem cells should not be accumulated and researched. there possible uses within the biomedical field are almost unlimited and we wont know shit about then unless scientists are able to fucking us them and see what is possible.
ps: no matter what anyone says, adult stem cells in the bone marrow are not the same as embryonic stem cells.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2006-07-20 14:05:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/90543#2061879
Submitted by pirate_pipi (user info) at 2006-07-20 13:59:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not a moral slippery slope. People don't get pregnant in order to supply researchers with stem cells. If they're having an abortion anyway (and I'd just like to mention that I'm not a great fan of abortion, especially where it is so often used as a form of contraception), at least something positive may come from it.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-07-20 13:49:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I DO NOT CARE AS LONG AS I STILL GET TO EAT MY CAJUN-BLACKENED PAN-FRIED PLACENTAS
Submitted by leilani (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:57:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:44:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
If a baby's foreskin could be used to cure diseases, would you advocate the destruction of all snipped foreskins or would you allow them to be used?
Would you say "circumcision causes the foreskin to be created and we shouldn't allow that to be used for medical research" or would you say "since we have this medical waste on hand, let's use it"?
-----------
DUDE, FORESKINS ARE PEOPLE TOO
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:48:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
nothing is mentioned about creating more, they just want to use what's already been created and is scheduled for pick up.
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:48:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So what you are saying is you would rather the eggs stay frozen until a power failure and then are dumped.
Or just when the parents decide they don't want to use anymore so they get rid of them. Because only a few give permission to let other people have them. Most are just destroyed. So...
I don't really see the big deal here.
But thats probably because if the eggs were mine I wouldn't give them away if I no longer wanted to keep them. Last thing I need is an emo teenager showing up on my front door when I'm 68 and callin me momma
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:46:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:42:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:36:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
If it is ALREADY WASTE I support using it for any legitimate medical purpose.
I do not support growing embryos in a lab for the SOLE purpose of harvesting stem cells. You are really working too hard to try and get the upper hand. The problem is, your agrument can't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, earlier you complained (or someone did) about me using the word babies, but you are calling them waste.
When you write WASTE you are reffering to embryos and foetii up to (in the UK dunno about usa) 24 weeks old.
So. If a foetus is born prematurely at 23weeks3days, it is 'a baby'. But if a foetus is removed for experimentation at 23week5days, it is 'waste'? Can you see why I don't want this scenario to occur?
-----
If an abortion has happened, it is medical waste. Period. It was not removed for experimentation, it was aborted because the mother exercised her right to no longer be pregnant.
Once it is waste, I support using that waste for medical purposes. I don't advocate labs going out and CREATING the waste, jusing what is on hand.
If you can't understand that, you are hopeless.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:44:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If a baby's foreskin could be used to cure diseases, would you advocate the destruction of all snipped foreskins or would you allow them to be used?
Would you say "circumcision causes the foreskin to be created and we shouldn't allow that to be used for medical research" or would you say "since we have this medical waste on hand, let's use it"?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:43:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
SHIT! I'm late for a meeting, I'll be back.......
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:42:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:36:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
If it is ALREADY WASTE I support using it for any legitimate medical purpose.
I do not support growing embryos in a lab for the SOLE purpose of harvesting stem cells. You are really working too hard to try and get the upper hand. The problem is, your agrument can't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, earlier you complained (or someone did) about me using the word babies, but you are calling them waste.
When you write WASTE you are reffering to embryos and foetii up to (in the UK dunno about usa) 24 weeks old.
So. If a foetus is born prematurely at 23weeks3days, it is 'a baby'. But if a foetus is removed for experimentation at 23week5days, it is 'waste'? Can you see why I don't want this scenario to occur?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:37:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Not banned. I said earlier that I would not want them to create more embryos than they're going to use.
Please answer my question now.
Submitted by Dumb_Name (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:36:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am a nihilist, so in my world nothing matters. I don't support stem cell research, by the way. The last thing we need is more people living longer.
I don't feel like a flame war.
I'm going to get a burger.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:36:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If it is ALREADY WASTE I support using it for any legitimate medical purpose.
I do not support growing embryos in a lab for the SOLE purpose of harvesting stem cells. You are really working too hard to try and get the upper hand. The problem is, your agrument can't.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:34:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So we should ban fertility treatments, since ALL of them create more embryos than are needed? All that waste has to be disposed of eventually. And that is the "death" you are opposed to here.
All I'm saying is...embryos are being thrown out when they could be used instead. You're making this about babies. I'm making this about a shapeless clump of cells.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:34:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There is NO EXPERIMENTATION FOLLOWED BY DEATH. The "experimentation" you cite is harvesting cells from medical waste. The death is occurring regardless, let's make use of the wate. that is what we are all saying."
In that case WHY do you not support making use of the 23 week old waste?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:32:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that the death is occuring reagrdless is what i meant when I said followed by death.
Harvesting causes death, but I thought you'd be annoyed if I said ''so called' humane death or lethal medical experiments.'
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:32:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm letting you catch up to my restatement of that point before I respond. Feel free to do so.
Submitted by Dumb_Name (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:31:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The legal system is a crock of shit. Why should intelligent scientists be forced to follow the law that is laid down by common retards?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:29:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:26:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
Because the law says so, you fuckin idiot. Do you only read the words that you can use to make an argument?
That is the stupidest thing ever written. So if/when the law changes what you think is right and wrong will change with it?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:28:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me rephrase:
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:25:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me get this traight. You guys are seriously saying you would put a different (much lower) time limit on medical experiments followed by death than you would on just death.
There is NO EXPERIMENTATION FOLLOWED BY DEATH. The "experimentation" you cite is harvesting cells from medical waste. The death is occurring regardless, let's make use of the wate. that is what we are all saying.
You are trying to turn it into a "we shouldn't kill them" debate, which is stupid given that it is legal.
Submitted by Dumb_Name (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:26:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Boo hoo. Embyonic stem cell research doesn't destroy life, it prevents it. Kind of like condoms.
Are you worried about those clusters of cells dying? Don't worry, I'm sure they will all go to heaven. Each of them will have their own petri dishes and daily nucleus massages.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:26:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:23:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's basically using discarded tissue for science, you just won't admit it because if you see it that way, there is no moral objection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why is a few day old emrbyo discarded tissue which is fine...and a 23 week old foetus not discarded tissue?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:26:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Because the law says so, you fuckin idiot. Do you only read the words that you can use to make an argument?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:25:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let me get this traight. You guys are seriously saying you would put a different (much lower) time limit on medical experiments followed by death than you would on just death.
Do you not think this is double standards?
I'll repeat my questio to you Hadley, if its not alright to [experminet/harvest whatever the fuck term you wanna use] on a 23 week old foetus then why IS it alright to kill it?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:23:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's basically using discarded tissue for science, you just won't admit it because if you see it that way, there is no moral objection.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:22:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You aren't experimenting ON the "babies" as you call them. You take a few cells and use them for experimentation. See, those few cells can be used to grow new cells. It's how the "lines" are recreated over and over.
You are turning the debate away from what it is to what you want it to be so that emotion gets i nthe way of the facts.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:21:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Abortion for pretty much any reason is good, and educational!
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:20:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am against abortion, if abortion were illegal, and some doomed embryos were found in a back door fertility clinic, then I would say sure, use them. But with abortion legal, making it legal to experiment on embryos/foetii/babies due to be/being aborted will lead to things I will not stand for.
I thought I'd covered my problem here.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/90708#2068210
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:19:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:55:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
So what is the difference bewteen a 23 week old baby born prematurely in intensive care and a 23week old foetus being removed for experiments then Hadley?
------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think ANYBODY is advocating the harvesting of 23 week old fetuses for their stem cells. Stem cell research focuses on pluripotent cells that are isolated from embryos that are, for the most part, a few weeks--if not days--old.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:16:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:10:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:07:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
The difference is, there are no 23 week old fetuses being removed. We're talking barely formed embryos.
You are the only one talking about aborting 23 week old fetuses. Stop it. It's a non-issue to throw debate off from where it should be.
Embryonic stem cells, not even fetal stem cells.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO.
How can you possibly put a different age limit on experiments than you can on abortion? If its not alright to experiment on them then how the hell can it be alright to kill them?
-----
Straw man.
I can do it because this debate all started over the recent veto by Bush. that veto centered on embryos. You, and people like you, turning this into an abortion debate is the reason that real medical research can't go forward. It. Is. Not. About. Abortion. Period. Stop going out of your way to make it so.
The question REALLY IS this, should a 2 week old embryo about to become medical waste be able to be used for science? Think of it like recycling. If we can't recycle embryos for a useful purpose, why the fuck shouldn't I throw out all reusable goods?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:15:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
oh jesus fucking christ
ok, let's use mice then
You have a box of mice, thousands and thousands of mice, one of them gets to go home and become a pet. The rest of them, every single one of the thousands and thousands of mice is going to be crushed in a trash compacter and then tossed into the land fill.
or these mice could be used for research
Oh and the mice, not only do they not feel pain, but they're not actually mice so much as magic seed that may turn into mice given the proper conditions.
Is that better?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:14:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:03:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:01:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
ok.. you're not getting it. they're not currently giving abortions to get the fetus for the cells. these are embryos that are NOT currently gestating. they are what's left after a woman is successfully impregnated.
nothing's being vacuumed out.
nothing's being terminated.
nothing's being created to be harvested.
they are just sitting there waiting to be thrown in the bins behind fertility clinics. they're not going to be anything other than food for the gulls at a landfill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I get that, what are you getting at?
---------
if you could save another human being, give someone else a chance at life, with GARBAGE. would you do it?
this is like walking past a garbage can and finding the cure for cancer sitting in the top.
if this can save someone else, and they're going to do nothing but throw them out which is the bigger crime? being able to help someone and not do it? or recycling human cells.
how do you feel about organ transplants? if someone's dead and they donate their organs why is this different? these right now are nothing. they are frozen viable tissue from donor that will be incinerated, like a dead viable heart from a car accident victim whose only future is a funeral. if you don't check the box on your license or what have you, they toss your body when your bits and pieces could go to saving another life.
would you really rather the chance be thrown away than used to save another life?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:10:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:07:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
The difference is, there are no 23 week old fetuses being removed. We're talking barely formed embryos.
You are the only one talking about aborting 23 week old fetuses. Stop it. It's a non-issue to throw debate off from where it should be.
Embryonic stem cells, not even fetal stem cells.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO.
How can you possibly put a different age limit on experiments than you can on abortion? If its not alright to experiment on them then how the hell can it be alright to kill them?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:08:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hmmm.....A name that won't have been defiled by chav usage and wont be ridiculously posh. Tough.
Maybe a foreign name...Sunni is quite nice, or Dimple....Taiyo???? hmmmm you're probably not gonna let me decide anyway
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:07:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:07:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The difference is, there are no 23 week old fetuses being removed. We're talking barely formed embryos.
You are the only one talking about aborting 23 week old fetuses. Stop it. It's a non-issue to throw debate off from where it should be.
Embryonic stem cells, not even fetal stem cells.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:05:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:00:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
You could name all your kids after Russian dictators.
-----
Yes or reality TV contestants.
Being a teacher I have known a kid with nearly every name over the years- I'm finding it hard to pick a name without a link to a chav/ chavette.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:03:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:01:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
ok.. you're not getting it. they're not currently giving abortions to get the fetus for the cells. these are embryos that are NOT currently gestating. they are what's left after a woman is successfully impregnated.
nothing's being vacuumed out.
nothing's being terminated.
nothing's being created to be harvested.
they are just sitting there waiting to be thrown in the bins behind fertility clinics. they're not going to be anything other than food for the gulls at a landfill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I get that, what are you getting at?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:01:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok.. you're not getting it. they're not currently giving abortions to get the fetus for the cells. these are embryos that are NOT currently gestating. they are what's left after a woman is successfully impregnated.
nothing's being vacuumed out.
nothing's being terminated.
nothing's being created to be harvested.
they are just sitting there waiting to be thrown in the bins behind fertility clinics. they're not going to be anything other than food for the gulls at a landfill.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 11:00:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You could name all your kids after Russian dictators.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:58:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We don't know if it's a boy or a girl because it's against the rules to say at our hospital, so I have no idea about names.
At the moment we call it Lennin, after an alcoholic chef my husband liked on a reality TV show... Lenny for short.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:55:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So what is the difference bewteen a 23 week old baby born prematurely in intensive care and a 23week old foetus being removed for experiments then Hadley?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WTF did I just write? Stupid changing thoughts in my head....
EMOTIONAL words like "babies"
DAMN THE MAN for making me work.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:51:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
People like you who bring sometional words like "babies" into the debate arethe problem. they are not babies. they are crygenically frozen embryos which will currently never be anything.
We aren't talking about CREATING embryos for stem cell research. We're talking about using medical waste for a useful purpose. Get that through your heads, please.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:49:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well actually for medical and cosmetic research i really think we should use prisoners; death row inmates, lifers, repeat offenders. then maybe they'll make a real contribution to society.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:47:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
HA. Too late to change your mind now C1ndy. Decided what ya calling it yet?
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:40:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm 25 weeks pregnant. Is my baby invincible now?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:39:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Apologies for the delays inn responding my web is playing up.
Look, we've all seen those leaflets animal rights activist give out, with the pictures of cats with bolts through their heads etc. We say that, in some cases basically torturing animals, is accpetable because it may save human lives but these aren't animals these are babies. If a baby is aborted it is supposedly done humanely, if you allow medical experiments on them then they are going to, in some cases, die slowly and painfully.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:29:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No loki, cupcakes is a terrible analogy. Lets take mice
You say people are allowed to kill mice, they're only mice.
Then you say of course they can conduct experiments on them, if they can kill tham why the hell can't they experiment on them right? and its for medicine, it could/will save lives.
Now replace mice with foetii up to 24 weeks. Medical research on foetii in the abortion time limit, I think its wrong.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:28:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
loki puts everything so wonderfully.
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:25:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Experimenting on something which has never been conscious and never will be due to said experiments seems ok to me.
Assuming thats what they are doing.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:21:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://gabbly.com/www.ubersite.com
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:12:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This has exactly jack shit to do with abortions. I have no clue why this is turning into an abortion issue. Once again and please focus on the real issue here, these fetuses in question are byproducts of fertility clinics. They are destroyed if they are not used for research.
once again this is not I repeat NOT about abortion
If you don't like the fact that thousands of fetuses are destroyed as a part of the process of helping couples conceive, then that's really too damn bad because you're never going to stop that so no matter what you think about the potential future of these fetuses, you have two choices, either allow them to be tossed out like the medical waste like they have been for what 20 some years or longer or use them to possibly cure life threatening diseases.
How about an analogy, you have a plate of cupcakes already created but are allowed to eat only one. You can either give the cupcakes to someone else or throw them in the garbage. The cupcakes on that plate have nothing whatsoever to do with the cookie dough across the room that someone has decided they don't want and are throwing down the disposal.
get it?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 10:12:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:54:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
The embryos are ones that were going to be destroyed ANYWAY, why not use them for science?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of what Indon said. If you allow embryo experiments then you cannot say no to experiments up to the limit where you think abortion is unacceptable.
Can you justify medical experiments on babies? in the UK as long as they aren't past the 24 week mark its fine. I have a problem with this. You would accept medical research conducted on a live 23 week old foetus?
If its going to be aborted anyway? so the doctors kill it at 23weeks23hrs59mins rather than as soon as it is removed?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:57:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/90708#2067984
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:57:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
am i the only one who thinks there's an obvious logical thought solution to this debate?
one side thinks abortion is wrong, and killing babies for research is also wrong.
other side thinks abortion is sweet, and killing babies for research is acceptable.
it's pretty much the case that abortion will never be outlawed in all of its forms. there'll always be some abortion. you might as well take those dead babies and put them to use for the good of others. it'snot like theres going to be a abortion factory where chicks get knocked up just to have abortions for research.
although it would be sweet to be the dude who works there as the knock'er-uper.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:54:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The embryos are ones that were going to be destroyed ANYWAY, why not use them for science?
Submitted by Davros (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:50:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I never know where to go on this sort of debate.
By upbringing and religion I am anti-abortion/research, but by independent thought I am pretty much pro-choice, which is, I suppose, what matters.
I think that the fact that these embryos would end up as medical waste would lead me to say that it is pretty much OK. Of course my religion forbids the harvesting of embryos anyway.
Not that I have lived within my religious constrains.
I just don't know.
Anyhoo, Woody. Coming for drinks?
http://www.ubersite.com/m/90659
-Dave
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:50:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
considering all the people that have fertility treatments nowadays and opt for abortions on multiples so they're not having SEVEN babies at once, i'd see those extra 4 or 5 fetuses as a stem cell gold mine. if they're cutting it out anyway why not?
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:49:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Look - even the religious right don't think the body is sacred - it's the soul which matters. For soul read personality.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:48:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You or I are just human tissue, probably, so what? Are you worth no more than spunk?
I don't understand how you can say a human embryo isn't human...if you truly are comparing it to spit then you're suggesting people split by osmosis. Wait osmosis isn't the right word is it....whatever that thiong amerocabs do, you know what I mean.
---
You have volition, memory, emotion, thought. I have personality. These are the things I value. Not a collection of biological processes.
And yes, reproduction is JUST a biological process - no different from the clotting of blood to form a scab, the growth of muscle in response to exercise. What's so magical about it? You've seen the same things I have. Cells split and grow. Just like bacteria.
Mitosis I think?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:47:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Would you force your morals on people about stem cell research?"
Yes
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:45:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:35:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:30:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
"No, a foetus is not a human being. A blood sample is not a human being.
There is no discernible difference between the foetus and the blood sample."
Red, what the fuck are you talking about? If a human foetus isn't human what the hell is it? A rock? an emu? what the hell are you saying?
---
Just human tissue. It is no more or less sacred than blood spit or semen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You or I are just human tissue, probably, so what? Are you worth no more than spunk?
I don't understand how you can say a human embryo isn't human...if you truly are comparing it to spit then you're suggesting people split by osmosis. Wait osmosis isn't the right word is it....whatever that thiong amerocabs do, you know what I mean.
Submitted by WookieSuave (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:37:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
holy christ Wookie it's you!
Why do you not post anymore? It makes me weep.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:35:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:30:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
"No, a foetus is not a human being. A blood sample is not a human being.
There is no discernible difference between the foetus and the blood sample."
Red, what the fuck are you talking about? If a human foetus isn't human what the hell is it? A rock? an emu? what the hell are you saying?
---
Just human tissue. It is no more or less sacred than blood spit or semen.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:35:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't know.
It seems like if Bush is going to use the whole "moral boundary" and "sanctity of life" justification for vetoing the bill, then he certainly shouldn't have presided over so many state-funded executions while governor of Texas (even more so if part of the argument is that people who are opposed to stem cell research shouldn't be compelled to fund it via their tax dollars).
Unless, of course, he wants to make the argument that the lives of criminals--by virtue of their criminal acts--are worth less than fetuses.
Unfortunately, that opens the door for the debate over the relative value of a life, which isn't going to help Bush's position since that allows for the rational claim that the life of a fetus--whether it's considered a human being or not--isn't as valuable as the life of a full-term infant, or a child, or an adult living with some type of disease that stem cell research could cure.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:33:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Its no secret on this site that I'm against abortion, I've also said that if I become Prime Minister I will respect the morals of the majority I represent, and not try to force my own morals on others on this issue. "
Would you force your morals on people about stem cell research?
I mean if you give them the choice to do something you think kills a life would you allow them to use it as they wish, or would that be too far for you?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:32:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:23:42 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 05:43:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
I really do think it would be interesting to see peoples choice on how far developed they have to be before it is no longer alright to kill them for medical research.
------------------------
I have mixed feelings on abortion, but I think if as a society we draw a line in the sand and say you can abort up to point "X" then you should be able to experiment up to that same point.
If it isn't a human yet and can be klilled, why can't you use it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:30:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"No, a foetus is not a human being. A blood sample is not a human being.
There is no discernible difference between the foetus and the blood sample."
Red, what the fuck are you talking about? If a human foetus isn't human what the hell is it? A rock? an emu? what the hell are you saying?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 05:43:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
I really do think it would be interesting to see peoples choice on how far developed they have to be before it is no longer alright to kill them for medical research.
------------------------
I have mixed feelings on abortion, but I think if as a society we draw a line in the sand and say you can abort up to point "X" then you should be able to experiment up to that same point.
If it isn't a human yet and can be klilled, why can't you use it?
Submitted by WookieSuave (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:14:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
Dear Moron,
All the medical breakthroughs that enable us to survive and evolve have came through medical research that originated through some form of exploration of living organisms. This involves cutting open poeople/animals and exploring whether they're living or dying. Without this research many people would surely be dead from disease. Sacrifice a few for the majority. Please take you close minded useless opinions elsewhere.
Thank you,
The Center for Improving Human Life
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Spook,
This just isn't true.
Creating medical breakthroughs in antidotes, general antibiotics, technology etc; are forms of adaptation, NOT evolution. Evolution is a natural process in which we would have to ALLOW the weaker of our species to die so that their traits are not passed on and thus our species evolves. All these advances in medicine are YES allowing our brothers and sisters to live longer, but would actually be slowing our true evolution.
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:17:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"You're not a human until you're in my phone book."
-Bill Hicks-
So when does the embryo become alive? When the cells start to divide? When the egg divides? When the sperm enters the egg? When the sperm gets its head in but not its tail? When the sperm first touches the egg? When the sperm is on its way to the egg? Your chart does not really have a beginning at all.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 09:03:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No. A Fetus is a human being. A blood sample is not. Until then is the point, the fetus will get your strange qualifications of life, a blood sample will not.
---
A human being is a human being.
No, a foetus is not a human being. A blood sample is not a human being.
There is no discernible difference between the foetus and the blood sample.
Submitted by ubetidid (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:57:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they do secret experiments at
the White House all the time.
And Mr. Boophead Bush oversees them.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:52:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
That ship, as they say has done sailed. The embryos in question were created as a part of fertility treatments. Not using them for stem cell research just means that they will be discarded as medical waste. In short, by hopping on your anti-choice soapbox you are, it would seem barking up the wrong tree. The real "enemy" are all those couples out there who for what ever reason are unable to conceive a child on their own and turn to medical science.
but thanks for once again sticking your nose into something you know precious little about and dictating to others what they should or should not do about an issue that could not possible for biological reasons be something that you personally have to deal with
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:22:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually SPOOK, serious question, how would these few be selected? criminals? some sort of lottery? volunteers?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:22:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually spook, serious question, how would these few be selected? criminals? some sort of lottery? volunteers?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:19:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think its particularly close minded to think your philosophy of sacrificing a few for the majority is absolute shit. Sacrifice yourself.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:14:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dear Moron,
All the medical breakthroughs that enable us to survive and evolve have came through medical research that originated through some form of exploration of living organisms. This involves cutting open poeople/animals and exploring whether they're living or dying. Without this research many people would surely be dead from disease. Sacrifice a few for the majority. Please take you close minded useless opinions elsewhere.
Thank you,
The Center for Improving Human Life
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-07-20 08:14:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's not abortion if the embryos are taken from the freezer for reasearch, instead of just being thrown out.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:55:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:34:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
Once they develop volition, memory and emotion.
Until then, there's little difference for me between a blood sample and a foetus.
Look, a scab congeals. So does a foetus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. A Fetus is a human being. A blood sample is not. Until then is the point, the fetus will get your strange qualifications of life, a blood sample will not.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:36:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I do believe that human life is sacred. But I don't think that a foetus is alive.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:34:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Once they develop volition, memory and emotion.
Until then, there's little difference for me between a blood sample and a foetus.
Look, a scab congeals. So does a foetus.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:33:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Listen... this all comes down to a simple belief.
"The Sanctity Of Life."
I, for one, don't believe it's all that sacred. Whether innocent infant or 60 year old murder convict. I don't believe "life" is something you have a right to. Life just is. It's an accident, a cosmic joke.
All of you are arguing something that I can't really get very worked up about. Is a fetus a human? I don't care if it is. Hell, let's assume that it IS a living, breathing, fully functional child - I'd probably still use it for vile scientific experiments.
But this is also why I don't usually get caught up in these discussions.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:32:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:31:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
No. Thats bollocks. Tumour is not human, tumour has no nervous system, no organs...it will never be a seperate organism let alone sentient.
---
The tumour is made of EXACTLY the same components, from the same source. While a tumour may not yet have developed its own heart, it seems a terrible thing to deny them the opportunity...
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:32:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Red? What critical mass? At what point is it unacceptable to kill them for medical research?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:31:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No. Thats bollocks. Tumour is not human, tumour has no nervous system, no organs...it will never be a seperate organism let alone sentient.
Submitted by hot_pocket (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:30:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
we should just harvest babies
have huge open air farms like cows where we let them graze and roam free and then we send them to a slaughter house where they brutally kill them and take their stem cells and then grind up the dead carcass and turn it into food for the rest of the herd
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:30:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by WookieSuave (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:28:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Kaos,
"TeH Space Aliens will have destroyed us by then."
:) Not If Tom Cruise Has Anything To Do With It! :)
---
He's the first wave.
Submitted by WookieSuave (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:28:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Kaos,
"TeH Space Aliens will have destroyed us by then."
:) Not If Tom Cruise Has Anything To Do With It! :)
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:27:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't agree that a mere smudge of partially grown brain cells and muscle tissue should be considered a human being.
Perhaps I'm being holistic about this, but until you get a critical mass, I can't recognise it as human. It's just potential before then.
And as I said before, shouldn't a tumour have equal rights? After all, it's made of exactly the same things your embryo is?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:21:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:13:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Right - 20 weeks before it even develops a nervous system? What next, arguing that tumours have rights too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
firstly...if you look at the picture (and I'm surprised you didnt know this already) the nevrous system fires up at 15 days.
Secondly, a tumour is not a human being. A human being is a human being, no matter how young it is.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:20:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by WookieSuave (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:14:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Kaos-King,
Evolution: The change in the genetic make-up of a population of organisms over time.This process of change is driven by natural selection.
Natural Selection: The process whereby some organisms in a species have certain inherited variations that give them an advantage over others.
If we continue with medical research the way that we are, aren't we trying to give everyone the same advantages as everyone else? It seems that if we continue on that path, the human species will actually cease to "evolve".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, I could see how that would be a logical conclusion. However, I highly doubt we would ever make it that far...
TeH Space Aliens will have destroyed us by then.
Submitted by WookieSuave (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:14:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Kaos-King,
Evolution: The change in the genetic make-up of a population of organisms over time.This process of change is driven by natural selection.
Natural Selection: The process whereby some organisms in a species have certain inherited variations that give them an advantage over others.
If we continue with medical research the way that we are, aren't we trying to give everyone the same advantages as everyone else? It seems that if we continue on that path, the human species will actually cease to "evolve".
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:13:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Right - 20 weeks before it even develops a nervous system? What next, arguing that tumours have rights too?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:13:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Whether or not an aborted fetus is "a person" is a totally debatable issue, therefore I stand as pro-choice."
Erm....so because you're not sure whether or not its murder...you go with the option that you think might be murder? Isn't that the wrong way around?
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-07-20 07:12:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
everything in the world is debatable. you still have to make your *own* choice. it is or it isn't. and if it's not, there's absolutely nothing wrong with aborting over and over and over. it's just an extension of your body that you don't want to allow to grow any further. like hair or nails. and if it is, then we're fucked. even 'rape and incest' aren't good excuses in that scenario, sins of the father.
Submitted by WookieSuave (