NationStates Jolt Archive

Im just starting this thread to somewhat advertise my latest UN proposal. Please check it out, even if you dont think you will approve it. It should be on page 18 of the proposal page. It is a significant strength, Human Rights proposal made in an effort to push for funding that will accelerate Stem Cell Research. Stem Cell Research is perfectly legal made possible by UN Resolution #2, Scientific Freedom . Please consider passing this resolution, as it is a very important issue. I urge all UN Members to at least look at it before you decide not to approve it. I encourage you to tell your fellow UN Members because we need all the supprt we can get. We need to get the word out on the importance of this issue. If you have questions, comments, or any suggestions on how to make my proposal better, please post them here. Here's a copy of it currently:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Nykibo

Description: The use of Stem Cells is an amazing new breakthrough in the fields of science and medicine. Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases, including Cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. But while the list of diseases that Stem Cells could cure gets longer and longer, the amount of what little funding is present continues to dwindle. I admit, some people do insist that harvesting something from a human as if it was an experiment is immoral, but allowing millions of people to die each day is much worse. This is the best chance we have at beating these diseases. The one thing standing in the way of this is funding. Stem Cell Research is very costly, and without proper funding, this plane will never take off the ground. In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits. I urge my fellow UN members to stand up to these diseases, and fund Stem Cell Research.

Make sure to vote for it, its on the front of the UN Page

Feel free to wire a telegram to me, my nation is Nykibo.

Would it be possible to post a copy of your proposal here, so that we can see what we are being asked to recommend?

Thanks :}

Eh - I had nothing else to do :}

(see other version)

Aside from not seeing the connection between human rights and stem cell research, I don't really have a problem with this.

Thank you so much, I was just about to put it up. Its actually because it would save lifes, and humans have the right to this, maybe Im wrong. I would think that going against it would be considered moral decency, and humans do have the right to this treatment, but it cant happen without funding, am I confusing?

and since you posted its gotten 2 more approvals

I am all for finding cures to Cancer and all of those other things, but personally I strongly dislike the idea of clones and if this is what the stem cell research is all about I would immediately withdraw my vote. The reason I strongly dislike stem cell research is that it would eventually lead to using them as spare parts and that is terrible to use a living being (even if it is a clone) and turn it into a spare part.

Well if you feel such a way, then please, withdraw you vote immediately.

But this may not happen, if scientists can study stem cells, they can perhaps find other ways of obtaining them. I hear that they can also use embilical cords.

My complaint is that this proposal does not seem to request nations to actually do something- it asks nations to "push" for funding but does not tell nations to actually fund these projects. I may support it if it reaches quroum, but I think the proposal needs a lot of work.

Thank you, I thought that it was ok but I see where you're coming from

Hmmm, yea, I agree, write it so it has a call to action somewhere.

My complaint is that this proposal does not seem to request nations to actually do something- it asks nations to "push" for funding but does not tell nations to actually fund these projects. I may support it if it reaches quroum, but I think the proposal needs a lot of work.
We agree.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Great, thank you all. Its doing ok, 29 I believe, but I think it'll have much stronger showings If I do what you say.

My stance is that a Stem Cell Research proposal is a step in the right direction, and this proposal isn't flawed to the point where I would not support it at all, but I still think it could be made stronger. Let's see what happens to the proposal first before saying it should be dumped.

Honestly, I dont see it becoming a resolution within the next 2 days with only 30 approvals, but its doing much better than I expected. I think I need to define exactly what and how to obtain stem cells, and clearly announce what I am asking from the UN

Im actually quite amazed at the amount of support I have seen from all these regional delegates. As this is the last day for voting on my proposal, I just want to say thank you for all of you who pitched in, and got the word out, and made suggestions. Thanks again. You guys rock. But this isnt the end of my proposalling, Ill be back with a revision of the proposal and hopefully it will do even better (heck, I got 50+ approvals and the day isnt over yet!).

Well, it seems that the proposal is now up for voting, so I thought I'd say my piece about it.

As was pointed out before in this thread, this proposal doesn't really do anything. It doesn't form any sort of group to conduct stem cell research, mandate any appropriation of funds from member nations, co-ordinate international research, etc. It really seems like a very loose proposal that leaves a great deal wide open for interpretation - which in my opinion is reason enough to vote against it.

Regardless of a nations individual position on Stem Cell research, it only seems logical to me that any sweeping resolution that would have a strong effect upon every member nation should have a fairly strict outline of what it intends to do. It helps the people who might oppose it understand exactly what it is that's being decided upon (and with clarity they might realize they aren't opposed to it at all) and it gives the people who support it the security of knowing that a well-intentioned idea won't be perveted by an immoral goverment taking advantage of loose language.

For this reason alone I think this resolution should be voted down, and if the original architect desires to re-introduce it, I feel it should be re-worked to include a few more specifics. Exactly what actions will take place? What will individual nations be required to do? What type of research, specifically, is being advanced? (For instance, is it only research with regard to curing disease? Are replacement organs included under the umbrella of this resolution?) What methods of obtaining Stem Cells are considered legitimate? Is this research to be conducted independantly, in participating nations, or will a single UN research group be created?

As you can see, there are numerous questions that are left not only un-awnsered, but entirely un-addressed by this proposal. Any ambiguity or vaugeness present in a resolution is simply a loophole waiting to be exploited in a manner that may, in fact, be entirely contrary to the spirit of the resolution endorsed by those who voted on it. Thus I implore that this proposal be strongly voted against, until such a time as it presents a far clearer position upon the subject at hand.

Well, it seems that the proposal is now up for voting, so I thought I'd say my piece about it.

As was pointed out before in this thread, this proposal doesn't really do anything. It doesn't form any sort of group to conduct stem cell research, mandate any appropriation of funds from member nations, co-ordinate international research, etc. It really seems like a very loose proposal that leaves a great deal wide open for interpretation - which in my opinion is reason enough to vote against it.

Regardless of a nations individual position on Stem Cell research, it only seems logical to me that any sweeping resolution that would have a strong effect upon every member nation should have a fairly strict outline of what it intends to do. It helps the people who might oppose it understand exactly what it is that's being decided upon (and with clarity they might realize they aren't opposed to it at all) and it gives the people who support it the security of knowing that a well-intentioned idea won't be perveted by an immoral goverment taking advantage of loose language.

For this reason alone I think this resolution should be voted down, and if the original architect desires to re-introduce it, I feel it should be re-worked to include a few more specifics. Exactly what actions will take place? What will individual nations be required to do? What type of research, specifically, is being advanced? (For instance, is it only research with regard to curing disease? Are replacement organs included under the umbrella of this resolution?) What methods of obtaining Stem Cells are considered legitimate? Is this research to be conducted independantly, in participating nations, or will a single UN research group be created?

As you can see, there are numerous questions that are left not only un-awnsered, but entirely un-addressed by this proposal. Any ambiguity or vaugeness present in a resolution is simply a loophole waiting to be exploited in a manner that may, in fact, be entirely contrary to the spirit of the resolution endorsed by those who voted on it. Thus I implore that this proposal be strongly voted against, until such a time as it presents a far clearer position upon the subject at hand.

You have read all the prior resolutions, right? So you know this is about par for the course, right?

And you still post this?

I'd suggest a reread of Resolution #20 - and I'm going to leave a number so you have to go hunt for it. Nyah!

it also seems to me that this proposal goes against the resolution where the UN cannot levy a tax on member states...this is a fixed-rate tax on all countries, regardless of their views on stem cells.

I call for everyone to vote it down on this principle...it can be re-submitted in a less strict fashion later if anyone really cares

My complaint is that this proposal does not seem to request nations to actually do something- it asks nations to "push" for funding but does not tell nations to actually fund these projects. I may support it if it reaches quroum, but I think the proposal needs a lot of work.

If this was to pass, I would like to see boundaries listed as of how far they are allowed to push morality and such... With strict guidelines pointing to where they are not allowed to go, it would make it less risky for those of us that don't support cloning.

You have read all the prior resolutions, right? So you know this is about par for the course, right?

And you still post this?

I'd suggest a reread of Resolution #20 - and I'm going to leave a number so you have to go hunt for it. Nyah!

First of all, I'm not even going to touch the assumption that simply because something is 'par for the course' (AKA 'has been done a lot in the past') it is automatically the correct and indisputable way to continue to do things in the future. Rather, I'll simply point out that of 80 resolutions passed so far by the UN, only seven of them take the form of a 'glorified opinion' as exemplified by this current proposal. (Numbers 2, 15, 16, 18, 19, 48, and 58) A full 67 resolutions can be considered to fufill at least the basic critera of advancing some form of action, establishing a set of rights, or performing some noticable activity. (Numbers 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 (20), 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80) Six other resolutions are worded in a fairly loose manner, and can be considered to fall in between the two poles. (Numbers 3, 7, 28, 42, 46, 68) Of course, this categorization is based upon my personal opinion of each of these resolutions, but I doubt that even the effect of respective individual viewpoints would be able to shift the balance enough that so your claim this is 'par of the course' can be taken seriously.

I've also posted resolution #20 below, perhaps you can explain to me exactly how this corraborates your stance? Not only is it a revision of a prior resolution, it seems to me to be a very good example of how a resolution should be put forward - and provides a very good contrast with the slipshop phrasing of the proposal currently under debate.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #20

'RBH' Replacement

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
*


Category: Social Justice

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Austrivum


Description: WHEREAS the Democratic States of Austrivum, the original sponsor of “Required Basic Healthcare”, hereby submits a replacement document as expressed through its text as follows.
It is realized that the United Nations resolution “Require Basic Healthcare” promotes social justice through the statement “basic healthcare is not a luxury, but rather it is a moral imperative”, yet it inhibits the rights of national sovereignty by imposing fairly rigid guidelines.
This resolution requires the following steps to be taken:
1) The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be no longer enforced by the UN.

2) The resolution “Required Basic Healthcare” is to be re-classified as a “reference- document resolution”. A reference-document resolution is defined as: a prior, passed resolution that is no longer enforced by the UN, but rather, can be used at a nation’s discretion as a suggestion, kept on record by the UN, that will help nations formulate or adopt different, similar, or identical laws to be passed by each individual nation through their own government process(es).

3) The UN, through this replacement resolution, will support the right of healthcare to all people by adopting this declaration as follows:
The UN encourages all nations to provide healthcare to their children, for they are the future of their nations, and have the budding potential that should not be stunted by inaccessibility to healthcare. The working populace within each nation should be granted healthcare for supporting their nation’s economy. All seniors should be supported through healthcare as well, but also in prescription drug coverage, for as they age after many years of service to their nation, they will need, if they so desire, life strengthening, lengthening and encouraging medications. The needy, or poor, should not be scorned, but rather, assisted. The UN stands by the message of social justice in “Required Basic Healthcare”. However, “Required Basic Healthcare” will not be imposed upon UN nations, in order to maintain national sovereignty, but will be kept on record as a “reference-document resolution”. The UN encourages healthcare to be provided to all nations’ citizens, for each step, even the smallest ones that may be taken by some nations, improves the well being of the global community.

The Democratic States of Austrivum once again encourages all nations to design and enforce a comprehensive healthcare/prescription drug plan within their nation, especially once economically feasible by that nation. After this resolution’s passage it will take effect immediately.

---The Democratic States of Austrivum

Votes For: 9,151
Votes Against: 5,564


Implemented: Thu Jun 26 2003

Curing fatal disease is a good cause and I will support it with all my strength, but I cannot allow unborn human beings to be experimented on in order to do it. Depriving a living being of a high quality standard of life for the benefit of others... reminds me of the anti-jewish policies of the Third Reich!

The human frontier has some boundaries that shouldn't be crossed. This is one of them, even in the name of Quality of Life.

I suggest people read about stem cells before posting inaccurate "facts":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

Whilst the government of Telidia agree the resolution has many loopholes not mandating any amount of research or anything else for that matter it does at least highlight the matter to members. Therefore we have decided that should this resolution pass we will pass internal legislation to more accurately manage the research, including the level funds that will be diverted to the research.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Sending founds to international body without clear owner, clear management system, clear democratic authorities is a BIG waste of money. It means only waste, corruption, acting, fat politician and fat politically assigned cheaters, and no improvement of ordinary people live.

The research of cloning and manipulating human cells and embryos is immoral and wrong in a principal way. It does not matter that the purpouse is admirable. In addition the proposal is badly written and does not set any boundries and clarifications. It will allow all research on these areas and must not pass

The research of cloning and manipulating human cells and embryos is immoral and wrong in a principal way. It does not matter that the purpouse is admirable. In addition the proposal is badly written and does not set any boundries and clarifications. It will allow all research on these areas and must not pass

Actually not quite, certainly there are no boundaries as you suggest but that actually helps you. It is left completely up to member states to do the research or not. It simply states that members look at this important issue and provide funding if they feel it is appropriate to do so. Personally I see this resolution as a ‘raising of awareness’ amongst the international community in the hopes that it would bring further research and thus advances. Herewith an excerpt for reference:

In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits. I urge my fellow UN members to stand up to these diseases, and fund Stem Cell Research.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Thank for starting this. About a month ago, I started a resolution similar to this, and it didn't get enough endorsments to make it to the floor. With this resolution, many people will be saved, to put it simply.

As for resolution #20, it just expands the freedom of research. This is like an amendment to it, adding funding.

Not much else to say. Send a telegram sometime!

I'm sorry but this is the wrong thread, someone put this up for me and its about the wrong proposal. This thread pertains to my first attempt at my proposal. Can I please get a mod to take this down?

And for many of you who are clearly confused, this proposal does NOT lack direction and does NOT breech any taxing laws. If a UN Member Nation's Citizens wishes to study Stem Cells, funding MUST be provided by the Member Nation itself. I believe the resolution that says no taxing states that the UN as a whole cannot tax its Member Nations, BUT a UN Member Nation may tax its people any way they wish. This resolution just states that funding MUST be required if it is requested by a Member Nation's Scientists. This way, it doesn't force Stem Cell Research upon any Member Nation, but gives them the option. Once again, this is the incorect thread and I dont doubt that some of you are attacking my FIRST version of this proposal, as I assure you, it has improved greatly since its maiden voage.

i think this is a really good idea but what kind of operation is involved with these cells? like will the people donating cells or helping produce them have to undergo any sort of medical or physical danger...sorry i just dont know too much about it :confused:

The people of Demographika have expressed support for this resolution. Our Legislative Assembly has also passed a strict anti-cloning law to guard against use of the resolution for such practices, feeling that this was a significant gap in the resolution.
Furthermore, the people are concerned at the rate of incomplete resolutions being passed by the U.N. recently, in terms of checks and balances.

I'm sorry, I was not paying close enough attention and started a new thread.

However, this resolution will not be given support by The Armed Republic of Aliste.

We recognize the following as being true:

1.) Embryonic stem cell research has never saved - let alone helped - anyone.
2.) In order to harvest embryonic stem cells - the human embryo must be destroyed.
3.) The embryo is a human life, although in the earliest stages of human development.
4.) New research has shown adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to be just as potent as embryonic stem cells.
5.) Embryonic stem cell research is unethical when there are other means of attaining stem cells.
6.) Adult stem cells have helped people, where as embryonic stem cells have not.

And that is why we will not support this resolution, and will urge others to vote against it as well.

Thank you.
The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Delegates of the United Nations, Caras Galadon rises in support of this proposal. While we WOULD have preferred the author use proper parliamentary form (cough cough...) we are satisfied with the proposal. Stem Cell research is if I recall legal already in every UN member due to past resolution entitled "Scientific Freedom" and I believe that this covers all forms of stem cell research. However, this proposal is a useful amendment, it draws the focus of member states to funding this area of promising research. The benefits of stem cell research could potentially be far reaching curing innumerable diseases. Stem Cells are already used to treat hundreds of diseases. Embryonic Stem Cell research also shows promise for curing many many more and research into the uses of adult stem cells is far from complete. I fail to see how anyone could really be against adult stem cell research as they may be taken from the patient to be treated with no ill effects at all. However, we understand that a considerable number of people object to embryonic research. The honorable delegate of Aliste was kind enough to bring up the primary arguments of such people. I believe that with reasonable thought and logical process we can see that these arguments are ill thought out, badly researched, and just plain silly.




1.) Embryonic stem cell research has never saved - let alone helped - anyone.
2.) In order to harvest embryonic stem cells - the human embryo must be destroyed.
3.) The embryo is a human life, although in the earliest stages of human development.
4.) New research has shown adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to be just as potent as embryonic stem cells.
5.) Embryonic stem cell research is unethical when there are other means of attaining stem cells.
6.) Adult stem cells have helped people; where as embryonic stem cells have not.



1. Embryonic Stem Cells are not widely used in research in most nations. Therefore their potential benefit is of course unknown due to a lack of research in the area. However, we should note than embryonic stem cells can be made into ANY tissue, organ, ECT. of the human body and the potential there is phenomenal.

2. Most naturally... The blastocyst is destroyed in the process ((note that a blastocyst is NOT considered an embryo as it consists entirely of unspecialized cells, it is a ball of 100 or so cells)). However, since abortion is legal anyway I don't see the problem here, there is a virtually limitless supply of embryo's in varying stages of development that are not going to live anyway so at least this way they're useful.

3. Again a blastocyst is not an embryo and that is where most embryonic stem cells come from. However, if you wish to believe that it is still destroying human life there's not much I can do about that. See previous point again.

4. True, new research has shown that SOME adult stem cells can mutate into other things than the system where they were found. However there are SEVERAL problems with this. The first is that NO ADULT STEM CELLS can mutate into ALL THE ORGANS TISSUES, ECT. of the human body, which embryonic cells can. A second important thing is that the mutation of adult stem cells in such a manner is very very difficult to accomplish. More importantly still, adult stem cells do not reproduce in the same manner as embryonic cells, which is another draw back. Also, adult stem cells are much more difficult to obtain with less than one tenth of one percent of tries at doing so actually succeeding. Of course this is not a problem for what adult cells are normally used for as they do not have to be isolated and refined, and the supply is actually literally infinite.

5. See argument #4... I detest repeating myself...

6. I do not doubt the ability of adult stem cells to have very good and legitimate uses. However see all the arguments again since I suck at paraphrasing.


In conclusion honorable friends, we urge you to support this proposal and render an affirmative vote (as if I really need to... it'll pass anyway). Stem Cell research has the potential to usher in a completely new age in medicine. With the UN-wide legalization of abortion we have a ready supply of cells for research, whereas adult cells do not have this same potential despite what the honorable delegate of Aliste would have you believe. We must draw attention to this promising area of medical research. Thank you.


**SOURCES**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
http://my.webmd.com/webmd_today/home/default

Although very articulate, I still disagree Caras Galadon.

The first is that NO ADULT STEM CELLS can mutate into ALL THE ORGANS TISSUES, ECT. of the human body, which embryonic cells can.

But see, you're wrong. Heh. Adult stem cells can be reprogrammed - that means they'll be just as potent as embryonic stem cells.

That in itself is already enough reason not to put money into the research.

And in fact it is a human life, feel free to Google.

When researching this topic for a debate I was to be apart of for my school - I came accross an online article in a Scientific Magazine (their website), and it explained how there is controversy because the human embryo is destoryed and that it is a human life.

It was not a religious magazine, but a scientific one.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Aliste, wether or not it is a human life is still more of an opinion, even if it were in a scientific magazine. All it means there is that it is the opinion of the writer of that article, editor of that article, or scientist being interviewed; not the thoughts of the entire scientific community.
Likewise, searching google for it will only show you the opinions of a large number of people. If these opinions largly agree with you, then they largly agree with you; this does not make them true.
Either way, the argument of being a human life is still on the drawing board, so to speak. The last I heard it has not been officially recognized as either yet.
Personally, I would be against doing it causelessly, for the same reasons you are, however; if the cause were good enough I do not have a problem with it. Think of it like the Atomic bomb. According to all the history I've ever been taught, it ended the war between Japan and America after 2 of them were dropped. But it is also a weapon of mass destruction. In the same way, I do not want it to be used causelessly, but if it comes down to that and the reasoning is good enough; I would be ok with it.

I think part of the other nations idea would work though. Specifically the portion about abortion. (Yes, I know that did just rhyme). Anyway, abortion is legal, and if someone is going to get one, why not allow it to go to science. In that case, considering your particular belief that it is a human life; being that it is being aborted (and thus destroyed) would it not aleviate the rammifications if that abortion went on to save hundreds, even thousands of other lives?

Although very articulate, I still siagree Caras Galadon.


Quote:
The first is that NO ADULT STEM CELLS can mutate into ALL THE ORGANS TISSUES, ECT. of the human body, which embryonic cells can.



But see, you're wrong. Heh. Adult stem cells can be reprogrammed - that means they'll be just as potent as embryonic stem cells.

That in itself is already enough reason not to put money into the research.

And in fact it is a human life, feel free to Google.

When researching this topic for a debate I was to be apart of for my school - I came accross an online article in a Scientific Magazine (their website), and it explained how there is controversy because the human embryo is destoryed and that it is a human life.

It was not a religious magazine, but a scientific one.


Thanks for the compliment... Anyway to adress your point...

Adult stem cells can be caused to reprogram to be more versatile however consider, a cell from bone marrow would normally become a blood cell ((which is very useful in itself from treating blood disorderes mind you)). However, as you've stated it can be forced to become a kidney, liver, or similar cell. However it CANNOT be forced to become say a heart or brain cell at the current time (as far as I have researched, if you know of any specific article from a reputable source please let me know... I'm always happy to be informed...) and it is unknown if it will become possible. Also, if you'll note the process of "reprogramming" a cell in such a manner is supposedly a very difficult procedure (I do no work in this area and wouldn't knwo to be perfectly honest... You'd have to ask a scientist). You also failed to adress the fact that a stem cell handled in such a manner is most likely really useless for anything practical such as growing a new organ or even establishing a line of cells for further experimentation.

As for your invitation to google... Google turns up 4,300,000 with the first page. I apologize but I simply do not have the time to dig through that many results for an article stating a single thing. A more refined search on "obtaining stem cells" yields 167,00 results. This is mroe promosing and while a can't dig through them all reputable sources tend to be on the first few pages. There is repeated support for your position that the harvesting of cells destroys the blastocyst (which is what you call and egg up to 8 days after fertilization when all it is is unspecialized cells) or embryo (for sources rmoe than 8 days in developement). The argument than any of these, however, is not really supported. Further I would say that this would have to argued from a religious standpoint which in my oppinion has no place in governmental practice as different religions often disagree (for example Jewish law demands abortion if a medical neccesity exists, and Buddhists would likely argue that a fetus is not a human life until it has taken its first breath). You're also ignoring the numerous sources of cells. Cells can be obtained from left-over results from invitro, abortion, early miscarriage, ect. From these sources there is no harm to a potentially viable fetus, embryo, whatever, as the embryo's, fetuses, blastocysts, ect. from these practices will be destroyed anyway it is really a question of how to destroy them and whether we would have their destruction used for the furtherment of science or not. Because, whether you like it or not, abortion is legal in the UN, invitro is becoming more common, and spontaneous miscarriage has this tendency of happening.

Anyway, I thank the honrable Aliste for the apparent ability to debate in a civilized manner (something lacking on these boards half the time).

Wow, Zardet - you too make excellent points. I should have signed up earlier, such intelligent people who although I may disagree with, are so articulate and do not resort to personal attacks.

I see what you're saying Zardet, but I think people are mixing up arguments. It is pretty decided that when a sperm and egg meet - a human life has begun.

Even the Pro-Choice movement has recognized this as being true, in the early days of their movement they tried claiming that it was not a human life - when science spoke out and explained it was a human life - they changed their argument to being that it wasn't a person.

So to argue it is not a human life - it's invalid. To argue that it's not a person (which is the modern day Pro-Choice argument) - is still valid.

And to be honest, I will not argue that it is a person. I really do not think anyone can say for sure whether it is a person. By my definition, a person must have some life experiences and history. So by my definition, the embryo is not a person.

But regardless, it is a human life - and that is what matters to me.

As for your abortion example, I am against abortion. But please do not drag me into an abortion debate - as the issue I'm very passionate about. And really, the issue is about embryonic stem cell research.

Anyways, I do not think you can compare the bombing of Japan to embryonic stem cell research - well, on second thought I guess that you can. Touche.

I suppose that will give me something to think about - but as of now I am still against embryonic stem cell research for the reasons I mentioned above.

-------------------------------------------

EDIT: Sorry I missed your post, Caras Galadon...

However, as you've stated it can be forced to become a kidney, liver, or similar cell. However it CANNOT be forced to become say a heart or brain cell at the current time (as far as I have researched, if you know of any specific article from a reputable source please let me know... I'm always happy to be informed...) and it is unknown if it will become possible.

I'm not entirely sure, you know I think I've heard somewhere that the stem cell cannot be reprogrammed into a heart cell or brain cell. So you very well may be correct.

After doing some Googling with those keywords, I actually found the magazine article talking about reprogramming - and at the bottom 'Human Treatments' it talks about treating people's hearts with their own stem cells harvested from bone marrow.

Here is the link, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html

So I'm not sure, it seems that maybe you can reprogram the stem cell into a heart cell. Still unsure about reprogramming it into a brain cell, though.

Just because you research something, doesn't mean that it's going to happen. You could put trillions and trillions of dollars into it, take lives, and get nothing out of it.

Exactly, Bentastic. Good point.

Which is one of the reasons why I am against funding embryonic stem cell research.

I would much rather put money into adult stem cell research which has been shown to be much more promising - we've already developed the techniques, the technology, and we know they have just about as much potential as embryonic stem cells.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I have a question: Can we use embryos that were going to be aborted for this? They are going to be destroyed anyway, but in this case their destruction may have a benefit to society.

Now, the arguements against it are that just because you research it doesn't mean it'll work. Then why try to find a cure for AIDS? Why try to find a cure for cancer? Why try to improve our medical technologies to help people? After all, just because we research them doesn't mean they'll work.

DemonLordEnigma,

Stem cells cannot be harvested from abortions. Therefor that argument is irrelevant.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

DemonLordEnigma,

Stem cells cannot be harvested from abortions. Therefor that argument is irrelevant.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Rather than aborting the embryo, you harvest it from the mother. It's not that hard to do and modern technology can even have her left scarless and able to reproduce against afterwards. So, it is relevant.

No actually, still irrelevant.

They need to fertilize the egg outside of the womb.

I'm sorry, I was not paying close enough attention and started a new thread.

However, this resolution will not be given support by The Armed Republic of Aliste.

We recognize the following as being true:

1.) Embryonic stem cell research has never saved - let alone helped - anyone.
2.) In order to harvest embryonic stem cells - the human embryo must be destroyed.
3.) The embryo is a human life, although in the earliest stages of human development.
4.) New research has shown adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to be just as potent as embryonic stem cells.
5.) Embryonic stem cell research is unethical when there are other means of attaining stem cells.
6.) Adult stem cells have helped people, where as embryonic stem cells have not.

And that is why we will not support this resolution, and will urge others to vote against it as well.

Thank you.
The Armed Republic of Aliste.

After reading this i am afraid that The Democratic States of Quinntopia will have to withdraw my vote..sorry but it seems that there's no point funding money into something that is destroying a human life form in order to benefit a more developed one...i'll have to withdraw my vote until further investigation

Sel Appa approves of Stem Cell Research. We give our vote, plus our 3 votes from endorsements.

Quinntopia:

Thank you, I assure you that the choice you have made is the correct one. Feel free to do some independent research on the issue.

The Armed Republic of Aliste believes that it is very possible to be for adult stem cell research and against embryonic stem cell research, as they are not one in the same.

And because this resolution specifically mentions funding towards embryonic stem cell research, or rather that's what the entire resolution is about (the title is misleading, really) - we simply cannot support it.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

No actually, still irrelevant.

They need to fertilize the egg outside of the womb.

You failed biology, didn't you?

An embryo is already fertilized. In fact, it has started to grow from the sperm-egg coupling to eventually become a person or creature. Thus, it does not need to be fertilized because it already has.

I think that the main thing people should look at is the fact that Aliste states previously, This research has not been recorded to have saved or helped any lives. Whether or not the good intention is there, the fact of the matter is, why should we put money into something that isn't actually known to help anyone?

I think that the main thing people should look at is the fact that Aliste states previously, This research has not been recorded to have saved or helped any lives. Whether or not the good intention is there, the fact of the matter is, why should we put money into something that isn't actually known to help anyone?

We really need to merge theset two threads :}

X-rays, before they were found to be medically benificial, had never saved anyones life. Penicillin was mould.

You don't know what good something can do until you try.

I think that the main thing people should look at is the fact that Aliste states previously, This research has not been recorded to have saved or helped any lives. Whether or not the good intention is there, the fact of the matter is, why should we put money into something that isn't actually known to help anyone?

Repost:

Why should we put money into developping medications to help treat and cure AIDS when those meds have yet to be proven to help? Why should we put money into developping new vaccines when those vaccines have yet to be proven to help? Why should we funnel money to cure cancer and AIDS when so far they have been failures? Why should we funnel money into developing alternatives to fossil fuels when they have yet to succeed?

The arguement is fallacious. Just because something has yet to succeed doesn't mean it won't. And even a failure gives science information it will need to succeed next time. If you're not willing to take the risk of failure, you're not willing to take the risk of success or advancement. Every attempt to advance comes with the possibility of failure and alack of proof it will actually help.

We really need to merge theset two threads :}

X-rays, before they were found to be medically benificial, had never saved anyones life. Penicillin was mould.

You don't know what good something can do until you try.

true but just how much is our people expected to pay for something that just 'might' work? Many economies just aren't strong enough to fund things that they are too risky

true but just how much is our people expected to pay for something that just 'might' work? Many economies just aren't strong enough to fund things that they are too risky

And those nations do not advance without the help of others. Everything is risky when advancing. Staying put is suicidal.

You failed biology, didn't you?

Yes but not because I'm stupid. Heh. Because I'm lazy.

An embryo is already fertilized.

I never said it wasn't, you must have read it wrong. You failed English, didn't you?

I said the egg needs to be fertilized outside of the womb in order to harvest the stem cells.

Thus, it does not need to be fertilized because it already has.

Once again, I never said that the embryo needs to be fertilized. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that the main thing people should look at is the fact that Aliste states previously, This research has not been recorded to have saved or helped any lives. Whether or not the good intention is there, the fact of the matter is, why should we put money into something that isn't actually known to help anyone?

Exactly. Thanks Quinntopia. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------


X-rays, before they were found to be medically benificial, had never saved anyones life

TilEnca, the x-rays also never killed anyone. That's the difference. We're talking about destroying human lives here for research that may not even be necessary when adult stem cells can be reprogrammed.

I guess its about time that I pop over here and defend my own cause. Thank you all that support me and helped me prove my point, but I believe it is my turn to say something here. Embryonic Stem Cells may not have helped anyone YET, but without thorough amounts of research, we cannot be as sure as you think you are, Aliste. Just because you dont see the evidence doesnt mean it isnt there. Take for example microorganisms. Prior to microscopes, we couldn't see them, but they were there. When microorganisms were first discovered by scientists, there was no evidence that they could help humanity, but because of extensive research we now know that microorganisms can help humanity. We have not even scratched the surface of Stem Cells, how can you be so sure that they can't help. You can't. As for ethics, tell me it is ethical to throw away an embryo that could have been used for the greater good, tell me it is ethical to allow masses of people to live in pain and suffering, TELL ME it is ethical to allow millions of people to die, each and every day!

I understand that people against abortion are also against this. But when it comes down to it, if a woman wants to give and embryo up for research, that is her own desicion. It is none of anybodys business to tell that woman that she can't make a personal choice because of a few politicians who want to force their own views upon other people. It is up to the woman, and if you couldnt tell already, I am pro-choice in the category of abortion.

Nykibo:

I truly believe that you have the best of intentions, but I refuse to believe that you aren't smart enough to see what is so wrong with embryonic stem cell research - right?

You aren't stupid - you know why there is so much credible controversy.

Embryonic Stem Cells may not have helped anyone YET, but without thorough amounts of research, we cannot be as sure as you think you are, Aliste.

It's not even about that, I'm all for helping people - but to sacrifice human lives is wrong, even if it may help others.

I'm not a math magician, but this is something even I could figure out. To take a life, in order to make the life of someone else a bit better - it doesn't add up.

Not even that, but we already have adult stem cell research that is much - much more promising.

Your resolution is talking about funding an unpopular research. Had it been a resolution for funding adult stem cell research - you would have gotten just about everyone on board with you.

When microorganisms were first discovered by scientists, there was no evidence that they could help humanity, but because of extensive research we now know that microorganisms can help humanity.

I do not think that you can compare researching microorganisms with that of resarching how to implement harvesting stem cells derived from intentionally destroyed human embryos - just my opinion.

We have not even scratched the surface of Stem Cells, how can you be so sure that they can't help. You can't.

Sure, stem cells can help people. Adult stem cells. Not stem cells harvested from embryos being intentionally destroyed.

You can't. As for ethics, tell me it is ethical to throw away an embryo that could have been used for the greater good, tell me it is ethical to allow masses of people to live in pain and suffering, TELL ME it is ethical to allow millions of people to die, each and every day!

Are you referring to abortion? Because I already pointed out that you cannot use those for harvesting stem cells.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I understand that people against abortion are also against this. But when it comes down to it, if a woman wants to give and embryo up for research, that is her own desicion. It is none of anybodys business to tell that woman that she can't make a personal choice because of a few politicians who want to force their own views upon other people. It is up to the woman, and if you couldnt tell already, I am pro-choice in the category of abortion.

I would definately agree with you there. All i can say is that i have no yet made a vote, just withdrew my last one until i've investigated further. I'm finding this topic somewhat harder as the contrast of moralities and practicalities are playing a huge part in this

True and i would usually be inclined to agree with you but there's a whole human rights issue involved with this one. Taking cells from babies or whatever way you choose to look at it (i personally see it as babies) is immoral to many people, especially as many of you voting for this issue are anti aboritionists, there's very slight differences

So is abortion, gay rights, allowing marriages to cross species borders, and most of the rest as well. Morality has no basis as an arguement when one looks at the UN resolutions already passed. Plus, it's only immoral when one stops and looks at it based on a religious issue. Scientifically, they are not people or even sentient yet when they are an embryo.

Also, many of us voting for this are pro-abortion. I may be opposed to it on religious grounds myself, but I have far more than religion to look at a do not feel my religion should be forced on others.

Yes but not because I'm stupid. Heh. Because I'm lazy.

You might want to retake it. A lot of it is helpful later on when arguing about this. Under the definitions of life given by science, an embryo is not actually alive. Therefore, you are not taking a life at all. If you want to go the religious route, there are questions of exactly when the soul enters the body.

I never said it wasn't, you must have read it wrong. You failed English, didn't you?

Nope. I majored in and passed it. What you did was imply that it wasn't fertilized with your response. If you did not intend that, you should have worded your response differently.

I said the egg needs to be fertilized outside of the womb in order to harvest the stem cells.

Not necessarily. The embryo is going to be producing stem (mixed up and called them T earlier) cells whether in the body or not. Harvesting them from the mother's womb may mean you miss out on a few, depending on when you get the embryo, but you can still harvest enough for it to be a viable option.

Once again, I never said that the embryo needs to be fertilized. :)

Yes, you did. A quote by you:

They need to fertilize the egg outside of the womb.

Which was in reply to this comment by me:

Rather than aborting the embryo, you harvest it from the mother. It's not that hard to do and modern technology can even have her left scarless and able to reproduce against afterwards. So, it is relevant.

TilEnca, the x-rays also never killed anyone. That's the difference. We're talking about destroying human lives here for research that may not even be necessary when adult stem cells can be reprogrammed.

Actually, they have. X-rays have been accidental causes of at least six deaths that I know of. And you're not actually destroying lives, as by the scientific requirements of life embryos are not alive.

For those of you who didnt know, Abortion is legal under UN Resolution #61. Why not use the embryos of abortions? That embryo was going to be discarded anyways, why not put it to good use and save lives?

Quinntopia, my friend.

Look at the facts, it's black and white. Heh.

This research is frivilous. With adult stem cell research being funded, with the technology already there, with the credibility - there is no need for embryonic stem cell research.

Don't be fooled Quinntopia.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

For those of you who didnt know, Abortion is legal under UN Resolution #61. Why not use the embryos of abortions? That embryo was going to be discarded anyways, why not put it to good use and save lives?

I just pointed out, embryonic stem cells cannot be harvested from abortions. What do you not understand about that?

(cough cough) Smokescreen.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

DemonLordEnigmaThingy:

Yes, you did. A quote by you:


They need to fertilize the egg outside of the womb.

Heh, that's really funny. Because I said EGG. Not EMBRYO. You said I said embryo, I said egg - and you proved it for me. Good job.

Excuse me Aliste, but dont cough cough me, how was I supposed to know, you people attack me faster than lightning. The point is, is that if someone decides to donate an embryo, who are you to say they cant? And your comment about Stem Cell Research being unpopular and that I Adult Stem Cells is popular shows just what kind of a person you are. I admit the odds are against me, and Im always up for a challenge, but I REFUSE to take the easy way out and support something that I dont believe in, ok?

ah but you see my friend i am easily fooled, i fell for the fun compatability test post...such a sucker i was.

So what do i do? Do i put money in for something that has so many odds against it but has good intention or do vote against it and follow my own moral high ground...which actually at present is shifting both ways. I think it's safe that i don't vote at all on this matter....and yet i am still unsure

Your resolution is talking about funding an unpopular research. Had it been a resolution for funding adult stem cell research - you would have gotten just about everyone on board with you. I dont care if everyone is on board with me or not, I will go down with this ship, and I will be proud of myself, resolution passed or not, that I fought the good fight and I stood up for what I believe in.

Excuse me Aliste, but dont cough cough me, how was I supposed to know, you people attack me faster than lightning.

Sorry Nykibo - I was extremely rude. I appoligze.

But you should have known, this is your resolution. Heh.

The point is, is that if someone decides to donate an embryo, who are you to say they cant?

A woman doesn't donate an 'embryo' she donates an 'egg'. And then that egg is fertilized in a lab and the stem cells are harvested.

I don't have a problem with what a woman wants to do with her eggs, she can do whatever the hell she wants with them.

But when you make an embryo, a human life, then you've got to be careful what you do with it.

Intentionally destorying it - crosses a line. Especially when it will contribute little to another person's life. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

And your comment about Stem Cell Research being unpopular and that I Adult Stem Cells is popular shows just what kind of a person you are.

I didn't say stem cell research was unpopular. I said that EMBRYONIC stem cell research was unpopular - which it is.

I admit the odds are against me, and Im always up for a challenge, but I REFUSE to take the easy way out and support something that I dont believe in, ok?

The odds are not against you, take a look at your resolution. It's going to pass.

Unfortunately. (sigh).

Once again my friend you make valid points. I think after reviewing both cases i'm going to cast my vote

The odds are not against you, take a look at your resolution. It's going to pass.

Unfortunately. (sigh).

I at least respect you, because even though you admit defeat you still fight for what you believe in, and it isnt over until the Complience Registry sends you a telegram. I do correct myself, a woman can donate and egg, and a man can donate sperm. Scientists can create an embryo and harvest its stem cells. This is also a good option for women and me who are to elderly to have children, but do have usuable sperm or eggs that can be donated for a good cause.

But when you make an embryo, a human life, then you've got to be careful what you do with it.
not everyone agrees that an embryo is a human life. we are obviously using different definitions of the word "human".

I at least respect you, because even though you admit defeat you still fight for what you believe in, and it isnt over until the Complience Registry sends you a telegram.

Thanks Nykibo! :) I respect you too, mutual respect - that's what it's all about. Heh.

I do correct myself, a woman can donate and egg, and a man can donate sperm. Scientists can create an embryo and harvest its stem cells. This is also a good option for women and me who are to elderly to have children, but do have usuable sperm or eggs that can be donated for a good cause.

That's absolutely correct, an excellent description of how the process works.

The woman donates the egg, a man donates the sperm. An embryo is created in a 'petri dish' (shudders) - and the stem cells are harvested.

When the stem cells are harvested, the embryo is destroyed. This is one reason I am against embryonic stem cell research.

But another reason is because I want to concentrate efforts on ADULT stem cell research, it appears to be much more promising and much more ethical.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Exactly, we dont even have an exact time period in which an embryo becomes a human. We could debate that once an egg is fertilized it is a human, or that its not a human until it takes it's first breath. We all have different oppinons, and this is the source of contreversy.

We also have different opinions on what is ethical and what is not ethical. In my opinion, ethics stands in the way of scientific advancement much too much, but there are some cases in which ethics needs to step in and prevent something totally wrong. A balance must be found.

Nykibo, those are two different arguments.

Very, very few people will argue that the embryo is not a human life.

But the argument you are referring to is that the embryo is not a person.

And granted, it may not be a person. There are several different definitions of what makes a person a person.

But regardless, it is a human life.

EDIT: As for ethics, I don't consider it ethical to destory a human life to make the life of someone else a bit better - do you?

Perhaps we could make a compromise as to when an embryo becomes a human life, perhaps after a week or two of embryonic development. In my opinion, it is a human life, but not immediately. In cases of a newly fertilized embryo, I see it as a potential human life.

No, there is no such thing as 'potential human life' - everything is either human life or it is not human life.

An embryo is human life. I'm sorry but there can be no compromise. :(

Can either of you give me a brief outline again of what adult stem cell research is....i think as far as morals are concerned i must side with Aliste.

Very, very few people will argue that the embryo is not a human life.
i will.

as i said in the other thread (though you may have missed it since it was locked):

as far as the ethical issue goes, it is the opinion of Finaco's scientists that the definition of human includes self-awareness and cognition. since an embryo is capable of neither, an embryo is not human. (this is also why euthanasia of the permanently brain-dead is legal in Finaco -- they no longer have awareness or cognition and therefore are no longer human.) we believe the defining quality of humanity is our minds, not our flesh. so flesh with no mind is not a human.

Nykibo, those are two different arguments.

Very, very few people will argue that the embryo is not a human life.

But the argument you are referring to is that the embryo is not a person.

And granted, it may not be a person. There are several different definitions of what makes a person a person.

But regardless, it is a human life.

EDIT: As for ethics, I don't consider it ethical to destory a human life to make the life of someone else a bit better - do you?

The embryo is not a human life. An egg that is two days past being fertillized (sp?) by a sperm is not a human life.

And yeah - on the ethical (though I think it is more moral than ethical) side I agree. Taking a life against the will of that life to save another life is immoral. But in this case it doesn't matter, cause it's not a life. (in my opinion of course, and as always I speak only for myself and my people, not the whole of the UN).

i will.

as i said in the other thread (though you may have missed it since it was locked):
good point there, thought not one i'm inclined to agree with. The Democratic States of Quinntopia believe that once there's life within an embryo it has human form

Quinntopia:

Adult stem cell research is what I'm for - I'm against embryonic stem cell research.

Adult stem cells are taken from bone marrow, fat, or umbilical cord blood. For example when a child is born, their umbilical cord blood can be used to harvest stem cells.

Fat, many people love getting operations to get rid of this stuff - well now it can be used to harvest stem cells.

And many people claim that these stem cells are not as good as the stem cells from embryos - and they're correct.

But unfortunately for them, new research shows that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to be just as potent as embryonic stem cells.

So not only is embryonic stem cell research unethical - it's also frivilous.

good point there, thought not one i'm inclined to agree with. The Democratic States of Quinntopia believe that once there's life within an embryo it has human form

The Democratic States of Quinntopia, so when exactly does human life 'spring' into the preborn - somewhere between when it looks like a tiny human and when it begins to look like a big human? lol.

Please, everything is either human life or it is not human life. When a sperm and egg meet - it is human life whether it looks like it or not. Once again, not a religous argument - a scientific one.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

oh no then i'm sorry. if there's any type of success in the adult stem cell research then quinntopia's nation stand for this.

The Armed Republic of Aliste is also for adult stem cell research.

But don't get confused, the resolution was for funding embryonic stem cell research. That's where they destroy the human embryo.

If the resolution was about adult stem cell research - we would have been for it.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The Democratic States of Quinntopia, so when exactly does human life 'spring' into the preborn - somewhere between when it looks like a tiny human and when it begins to look like a big human? lol.



The Armed Republic of Aliste.[/QUOTE]
Yeh...."life" thats what i meant lol.. :rolleyes:

so when exactly does human life 'spring' into the preborn - somewhere between when it looks like a tiny human and when it begins to look like a big human? lol.
yes.

Please, everything is either human life or it is not human life.
an embryo is not human life.

you are arguing a logical fallacy. it's called the Continuum Fallacy or, more prosaically, "The Fallacy of the Beard."

you are stating that because no sharp dividing line can be drawn between when the fetus is not human or human, that no division can be made at all. this is a logical fallacy. there are clearly differences between a zygote and a baby. just because the moment it becomes human cannot be specifically and sharply pointed out doesn't mean that there is no distinction between the two extremes.

you can look at this page (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/open_and_closed_concepts1.htm) and scroll down to the section labeled The Continuum Fallacy for more details on the subject.

as far as the government and people of Finaco are concerned, the case is closed. the embryos used in stem cell research are not human.

There is such a thing is potential life, it could be life but it isnt because it isnt developed enough. Again, its all in opinion.

I agree, i don't think it's fair of any of us to state what's factual when it comes to people's personal opinions

I agree with Finaco (sp?) just because we cant see or define something, doesnt mean it isnt there.

Perfect example, day and night, We know that day turns to night when it gets dark, but we cant put an exact time on when one becomes the other, We cant exactly define it, because its all in one's opinion, but we know there is a difference.

Finaco,

yes.

Very convincing.

you are stating that because no sharp dividing line can be drawn between when the fetus is not human or human, that no division can be made at all. this is a logical fallacy.

Actually, I'm stating that there is a VERY SHARP dividing line between when the fetus is a human and when it is not.

Here, let me quote myself AGAIN for you although I shouldn't have to.

>>"Please, everything is either human life or it is not human life."<<

there are clearly differences between a zygote and a baby.

Sure there are, physical differences. There are many differences between Puff Daddy and me - but we are both human and we are both alive. We are both human lives.

This analogy is very true for a embryo and a baby.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

i dont think its a good idea..noone shuld vote 4 it....hey maria!!!

I also agree and take back what i said away previously about not supporting this because there's no real evidence of any progress happening. Of course many cures like penicillin as many have said started off like this and with the support have gained progress and developments. This unfortunately is just something i don't happen to agree with but if i'm being truly honest i respect your determination Nykibo and think you deserve the votes for at least that alone, in my opinion of course lol
Democratic Social Nation of Quinntopia

Thank you very much, and I respect your opinion. :) The matter is Aliste, is that wheter you realize it or not, you saying "embryos are human lives" is not factual, it is purely your opinion, and I respect that as well. But what irks me is, is that you're not seeing just that, what your saying is your opinion, not fact.

Very convincing.
i wasn't being sarcastic. you asked a question and i answered it.

Actually, I'm stating that there is a VERY SHARP dividing line between when the fetus is a human and when it is not.
in my opinion, you are drawing that line in a very nonsensical place. a one-celled zygote is definitely not human in my opinion. using the analogy of the Fallacy of the Beard, you are saying that all clean-shaven men have full beards. i do not believe that to be the case.

Sure there are, physical differences. There are many differences between Puff Daddy and me - but we are both human and we are both alive. We are both human lives.
physical differences are irrelevant to one's status as a human being, in my opinion. there are cognitive differences between an embryo and a baby, and that is the key point.

you and Puff Daddy are both self-aware and have cognition. therefore you are both human. an embryo has neither, and therefore is not human.

as i said before, we are obviously operating under different definitions of the word "human".

you and Puff Daddy are both self-aware and have cognition. therefore you are both human. an embryo has neither, and therefore is not human.

as i said before, we are obviously operating under different definitions of the word "human".[/QUOTE]

Yes but i think what Aliste is trying to say here is that whether it's a zygote, embryo or baby in his opinion it's still has human life

Yes but i think what Aliste is trying to say here is that whether it's a zygote, embryo or baby in his opinion it's still has human life
i understand that that is his opinion.

however, so far in this thread he has been maintaining that that is fact, and has been unwilling to see that other people have different opinions.

as i said before, we are obviously operating under different definitions of the word "human".

Perhaps Aliste believes that our DNA is what makes us human. I would actually like to see how Aliste defines "human". The question of whether it's a life is nonsense. Of course it's a life. It's how we value that life that makes the difference in our positions.

i wasn't being sarcastic. you asked a question and i answered it.

I know. I was the one being sarcastic. Heh. :p

in my opinion, you are drawing that line in a very nonsensical place. a one-celled zygote is definitely not human in my opinion. using the analogy of the Fallacy of the Beard, you are saying that all clean-shaven men have full beards. i do not believe that to be the case.

It's actually very sensical. Google, 'When does life begin?' and see what results you get. Science agrees with me, heh. I'm sorry but they just do.

http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html

Here is a piece of what the article says: "The board claimed that while philosophy and religion may have different opinions concerning when life began, science had no such problems. Students were told that biologists were unanimous in agreeing that life starts at fertilization, and that there was no dispute in the scientific literature."

So as you can see, science tends to agree that human life begins at fertilization. Because an embryo is fetilized - I guess that means a lot of people disagree with you. Heh.

you and Puff Daddy are both self-aware and have cognition. therefore you are both human. an embryo has neither, and therefore is not human.

Once again you're mixing up the arguments. People are self-aware. So the embryo may not be a person. Granted. But it is a human life.

What's life? how do you define life? what is a good life and what is a bad life? everyone is positioned in the center of the universe. Everyone else is wrong and I am right. I am the leader. I am God. The God.

Is it in the position of the UN to define life, when so many nations define life differently out of religion, moral standards, tradition and ignorance.

The resolution is misplaced. It does not belong here. Vote NO i say, NO!

I just pointed out, embryonic stem cells cannot be harvested from abortions. What do you not understand about that?

And what part of "harvest the embryo instead of aborting it" do you not understand?

(cough cough) Smokescreen.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Smokescreen? Not in the least.

DemonLordEnigmaThingy:



Heh, that's really funny. Because I said EGG. Not EMBRYO. You said I said embryo, I said egg - and you proved it for me. Good job.

No, I just proved how little you knew about biology with that post and now you are trying to cover your ass. Your post implied that an embryo and an egg are the same thing. Just admit you screwed up and get it over with. It'll save us all trouble.

A woman doesn't donate an 'embryo' she donates an 'egg'. And then that egg is fertilized in a lab and the stem cells are harvested.

That's one process. Him and I are suggesting another. Don't think that one way is the only way.

I don't have a problem with what a woman wants to do with her eggs, she can do whatever the hell she wants with them.

But when you make an embryo, a human life, then you've got to be careful what you do with it.

According to the scientific definition of life, an embryo is not alive. If you want to argue genetics, then I'll point out your hypocrisy. An egg and an embryo both are human in their genetic codes, with the embryo being a complete human.

Intentionally destorying it - crosses a line. Especially when it will contribute little to another person's life. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Intentionally destroying a bacteria that can cause harmful effects when it causes no actual percieved benefit, as it is not curing anyone of anything, makes as much sense. The difference is in this case, we are trying to find a cure.

Nykibo, those are two different arguments.

Very, very few people will argue that the embryo is not a human life.

But the argument you are referring to is that the embryo is not a person.

And granted, it may not be a person. There are several different definitions of what makes a person a person.

But regardless, it is a human life.

EDIT: As for ethics, I don't consider it ethical to destory a human life to make the life of someone else a bit better - do you?

A human embryo lives in what can be best described as a parasitic relationship with the mother. I have yet to see evidence that it is human life and wish you to provide that.

No, there is no such thing as 'potential human life' - everything is either human life or it is not human life.

An embryo is human life. I'm sorry but there can be no compromise.

If there is no compromise, then they are not human or alive. They do not meet all of the requirements for life and are not sentient.

I guess that means a lot of people disagree with you. Heh.
that doesn't bother me. :)

Once again you're mixing up the arguments. People are self-aware. So the embryo may not be a person. Granted. But it is a human life.
no, i'm not. for me, human == person. they mean the same thing to me. you cannot be a human without being a person, and vice versa.

Just because its OTHER PEOPLES opinions doesnt mean its factual either, lol!

that doesn't bother me. :)


no, i'm not. for me, human == person. they mean the same thing to me. you cannot be a human without being a person, and vice versa.

The dolphins will be disappointed to hear that.

And what part of "harvest the embryo instead of aborting it" do you not understand? I'll have to grunt to make it simpler than that.

YOU - CANNOT - HARVEST - STEM CELLS - FROM - EMBRYOS IN THE - MOTHER.

Can I make it ANY MORE CLEARER? The embryo must be created outside of the womb - IT CANNOT BE TAKEN FROM THE WOMB AND THEN HAVE IT'S STEM CELLS HARVESTED.

No, I just proved how little you knew about biology with that post and now you are trying to cover your ass. Your post implied that an embryo and an egg are the same thing. Just admit you screwed up and get it over with. It'll save us all trouble.

You're such an idiot, heh. I did not imply anything, I said EGG because I meant EGG.

If someone asks you, "Hey want to get something to drink?" are you going to say to them "Oh you implied taking a ride to the mall, I thought." lol.

I said EGG because I meant EGG. You thought I said embryo, and made a complete ass out of yourself.

You're the one who screwed up by thinking I said embryo when I said egg and instead of correcting yourself - are now trying to say I IMPLIED embryo.

Lol, you sir - are a fool.

Good bye and thanks for the fish...

From now on, anyone who personally attacks me I will not be debating with. Ok? Great. :)

Alright, now we're swearing and personally attacking each other, thats not what politics is about, unless you count Dick Cheney, Vice President of the USA, saying F*** You in a debate to his opponent. And we all know Dick Cheney is a robot, so thats beside the point. Lets just cool off and calm down.

Nykibo, I have kept level headed throughout this entire debate.

I have refrained from using personal attacks - but DemonLamaGodLord personally attacked me.

I guess the only way for him to get his point accross is by acting like a child.

i think there's HARD FACT, OPINIONATED FACT or FACTUAL OPINION or TRUE OPINION....what category does this topic fall under for you lot?

The dolphins will be disappointed to hear that.
i'm not exactly sure what your point is, but if it is ever proven that dolphins cogitate at the same level as we do, i'll be the first among us to consider them human beings.

i already said that i believe physical differences are irrelevant in determining human status.

Good bye and thanks for the fish...

Heh. Yeah.

Though I was actually referring to the fact that dolphins have even larger brains in proportion to their body than we do, and seem to have advanced cognitive structures, which would qualify them as a person if we don't equate "human" with "person".

I have refrained from using personal attacks - but DemonLamaGodLord personally attacked me. Uh, yes you have by calling him an idiot, and you just condradicted yourself by not having the decency to say his name correctly. Now, we're going to start this again calmly or I will call a mod over here to delete this post an allow no more official debates. Then the chips will fall where they may and you wont get to voice your opinions,and at this pint the way youre acting, you dont deserve to voice your opinions. The purpose here is to arue your opinion not act like animals.

i'm not exactly sure what your point is, but if it is ever proven that dolphins cogitate at the same level as we do, i'll be the first among us to consider them human beings.

It will be difficult to determine whether dolphins cogitate at the same level we do because they have no way to communicate abstract concepts to us as of yet. And our inherent cultural biases may very well impact our fairness in testing their intelligence.

A human life is created when a woman's egg is fetilized.

This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

Do not even try arguing this. Arguing it is not a human life is a very old fashioned argument.

The new argument is that the embryo is not a person.

Youre both at fault, and I didnt mean to direct it to you, but there was no need for that little show Screw you.

The new argument is that the embryo is not a person.

Don't let them fool you. That argument is old too.

Well you did - you did direct it to me. It should have been directed towards him.

I was going to post a long refute of the arguement, but from a couple of posts I shall not.

Guys, you might want to delete your replies. Trust me on this.

a fungus has life...if we killed a fungus is it wrong to destroy it...i'm not making much sense but somethings telling me i've a point....a stupid one but i'm just equally confused as i am intrigued by all this

It will be difficult to determine whether dolphins cogitate at the same level we do because they have no way to communicate abstract concepts to us as of yet. And our inherent cultural biases may very well impact our fairness in testing their intelligence.
that's sadly true. i've been trying to keep my eye on cetacean studies over the years in hopes of a breakthrough. i think it would be awesome to communicate with dolphins and whales. :)

This is not an opinion, this is a fact.
opinion.

Towards him? What is this, she/he started??? Thats disgusting, the point is you both exchanged words, you both are at fault. I dont care if I get banned, hey, more publicity for me. But really, it shouldnt come to this.

a fungus has life...if we killed a fungus is it wrong to destroy it...i'm not making much sense but somethings telling me i've a point....a stupid one but i'm just equally confused as i am intrigued by all this

Right, but a fungus life is not equal to a human life.

If a heeping pile of fungus was in the middle of the road and an embryo - and I could only get one out of the road as a truck is about to hit it...

I'd get the human embryo out of the road. lol.

point taken aliste lol

Heh, I love the "in the middle of the road" examples. :p

yeh they work....ah but wot if an embryo and a zygote where in the middle of the road, who would you save

I wont even comment on the fungus, because it will lead me into a condradictory trap, which I wont go into, lol.

yeah it messed with my head for the brief few moments it was aroused ther

yeh they work....ah but wot if an embryo and a zygote where in the middle of the road, who would you save

A zygote is a fertilized egg right? Just like an embryo? Hm.

That's a good question. I don't know. :p

yeah either do i...sorry i brought it up now. But when these things come into my head they just have to be said aloud..unfortunately for you guys

Well, I never thought I'd have such an uproar and so much attention surrounding me and my proposal. I mean, a nine page debate/flamefest is pretty interesting, although I must say we are straying way too far to be productive.

It's going to pass, whatever.

I'm not going to vote for it, however. And let me say this:

Anyone here who is well read on the issue will see it for what it is.

And they will thusly vote against the resolution.

Thank you.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I think we should all as for tonight...well for myself personally speaking...agree to disagree on both our facts and our opinions and leave this for the nations to decide. Good luck to everyone.
Democratic States of Quinntopia :fluffle:

It's going to pass, whatever.

Most likely.

I'm not going to vote for it, however.

Neither am I.

Anyone here who is well read on the issue will see it for what it is.

Really complicated? I don't get the impression that you see it as particularly complicated. Of course, that may be because I have not been doing my job properly, so I'll try to amend that.

What do you define as "human"?

I think we should all as for tonight...well for myself personally speaking...agree to disagree on both our facts and our opinions and leave this for the nations to decide. Good luck to everyone.
Democratic States of Quinntopia :fluffle:

Heh. I like you Quinntopia. Yeah, I think that'd be a good idea.

Let's all just agree to disagree.

Really complicated? I don't get the impression that you see it as particularly complicated. Of course, that may be because I have not been doing my job properly, so I'll try to amend that.

lol! Yes, really complicated. Heh. Well, debating it is at least - lol.

And no, I don't see it as complicated really. (OOC: I've done some research before about this topic when preparing for a debate at my school.)

I'm not an expert by any means, not even close - but I know a little more than the average person I suppose.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Whoa, what are you trying to say here Aliste? That only people who don't know what theyre doing will vote for this resolution. Ok, wheter you meant it or not, you sent the wrong message. I would like to say you're hard-headed, stubborn, and nonsencial, but I wont. Oops, it slipped.

And no, I don't see it as complicated really. (OOC: I've done some research before about this topic when preparing for a debate at my school.)

I'm not an expert by any means, not even close - but I know a little more than the average person I suppose.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Then would you like to answer my question? I've posed it twice and you have not responded either time.

Well, I never thought I'd have such an uproar and so much attention surrounding me and my proposal. I mean, a nine page debate/flamefest is pretty interesting, although I must say we are straying way too far to be productive.

It's an issue with a lot of controversy surrounding it. People have argued longer, hotter, and far more offensive about it than this thread has been. But don't worry. The arguement, on topic, will start back up once the nations who are currently on Thanksgiving vacation get back, read the resolution, and decide to come here and try to argue people out of voting for it.

Perhaps the greatest controversies are the questions of "What is life?" and "When is an embryo a human being?" The problem is that neither side actually has any answers, just the opinions they subscribe to. Sometimes they have evidence, sometimes they don't.

The fact people have argued so heavily on it says something about how strong the issue is. This is an issue that, in its scope of what it actually does, is bigger than even gay rights is. This issue doesn't just deal with stem cell research, but actually goes much further and forces people to think and question what they consider life to be and when they consider something to be human. I doubt you will ever find anything else that becomes a resolution to vote on with this much power to affect people.

This touches base on the question that has plagued humanity from its very beginnings: "Who are we?" It does such by touching base on what people consider human, when they consider something to be human, and what is required to be human. It forces them to think, to consider, and to question what the answers to those subtopics, and through them the answer to the main question, are. And that is why people argue over it, why flames are thrown with abandon, and why people refuse to move from their positions.

You have touched on the question that defines why humanity is the way it is and why it has done everything it has. Not many people in the UN will be able to say they could do that, and long after this resolution is forgotten your mark on NS history and the fact you did that will remain.

Whoa, what are you trying to say here Aliste? That only people who don't know what theyre doing will vote for this resolution. Ok, wheter you meant it or not, you sent the wrong message. I would like to say you're hard-headed, stubborn, and nonsencial, but I wont. Oops, it slipped.

As one who had previously thought that stem cells could be harvested from aborted fetuses, I would like to say that you're an unintelligent fool, but I wont. Oops, it slipped.


Then would you like to answer my question? I've posed it twice and you have not responded either time.

Sorry Texan, when I saw it I didn't want to edit my post thinking someone might post after that and everyone would miss it.

Here, allow me to answer it, the question was "What do you define as "human"?"

Well, I think "human" is a pretty broad term. Is that referring to characteristics of a human person?

It's an issue with a lot of controversy surrounding it. People have argued longer, hotter, and far more offensive about it than this thread has been. But don't worry. The arguement, on topic, will start back up once the nations who are currently on Thanksgiving vacation get back, read the resolution, and decide to come here and try to argue people out of voting for it.

Perhaps the greatest controversies are the questions of "What is life?" and "When is an embryo a human being?" The problem is that neither side actually has any answers, just the opinions they subscribe to. Sometimes they have evidence, sometimes they don't.

The fact people have argued so heavily on it says something about how strong the issue is. This is an issue that, in its scope of what it actually does, is bigger than even gay rights is. This issue doesn't just deal with stem cell research, but actually goes much further and forces people to think and question what they consider life to be and when they consider something to be human. I doubt you will ever find anything else that becomes a resolution to vote on with this much power to affect people.

This touches base on the question that has plagued humanity from its very beginnings: "Who are we?" It does such by touching base on what people consider human, when they consider something to be human, and what is required to be human. It forces them to think, to consider, and to question what the answers to those subtopics, and through them the answer to the main question, are. And that is why people argue over it, why flames are thrown with abandon, and why people refuse to move from their positions.

You have touched on the question that defines why humanity is the way it is and why it has done everything it has. Not many people in the UN will be able to say they could do that, and long after this resolution is forgotten your mark on NS history and the fact you did that will remain.

Love it all! Hear! Hear!...how wonderfully philosophical...i'm going to enjoy this website more and more.

ah hem..."Good night, sweet dreams. May they appear all that they seem. God's gift tonight will appear in full beam, as you sleep with the heart of one lover's dream"

Democratic States of Quinntopia

Quoting now, are we?

Well, I think "human" is a pretty broad term. Is that referring to characteristics of a human person?

All I have to say is *Cough* *Cough* Smokescreen

All I have to say is *Cough* *Cough* Smokescreen

Nykibo, do you even know what a smokescreen is? Heh.

Because you used that term incorrectly. :p

It was pretty amusing though.

Aliste, if you don't stop flaming, I'll have no choice but to revoke your access to this forum for a period of time left to my discretion.
Consider yourself warned.

Nykibo, do you even know what a smokescreen is? Heh.

Because you used that term incorrectly.

It was pretty amusing though.

Actually I do, but I thought it was a semi-clever mockery of your unintelligence, guess you didnt get it, which proves my point further. :D

Aliste, if you don't stop flaming, I'll have no choice but to revoke your access to this forum for a period of time left to my discretion.
Consider yourself warned.

Myrth, with all do respect. It is I who am being flamed.

And Nykibo, it was not clever - a smokescreen is another argument that is irrelevant but seems relevant and people cannot quite see through it.

What you were trying to refer to was me dodging the question. That is not a smokescreen - that is not close.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Thanks Nykibo! :) I respect you too, mutual respect - that's what it's all about. Heh. Wait, what just happened?

Sorry Texan, when I saw it I didn't want to edit my post thinking someone might post after that and everyone would miss it.

Here, allow me to answer it, the question was "What do you define as "human"?"

Well, I think "human" is a pretty broad term. Is that referring to characteristics of a human person?

What makes an entity "human"? You believe that an embryo is a human life.

I concur that it is a life, though there are lots of things that are "life", such as animals, plants, and bacteria. So obviously it is not the property of "life" by itself that makes a human life valuable.

Is what makes it valuable that it has human DNA? If so, is a chimp which has 98% of the same DNA we do 98% of the value of a human? Is a dolphin, which has quite possibly significantly more awareness and intelligence than a chimp, less valuable than that chimp because the dolphin's DNA is not as close to human DNA?

Is it potential? That embryo has the potential to become a fully functioning human adult, and so that's why it's valuable? A (hypothetical) 98 year old man has only the potential to waste away and die at the expense of the state and his relatives, so because he doesn't have much potential, he must not be that valuable.

Is it self-awareness, conciousness? Other animals have that, and we don't value them as much as a human life.

Is it a capacity for abstract thought? Embryos certainly do not have that capacity.

So what is it that makes it human, and why is that valuable?

What just happened? You started mocking me, you described me as "hard-headed, stubborn, and nonsencial", and then I got warned by Myrth.

Ok, I mocked you because you put out the message that my supporters didn't know squat about Stem Cell research, Im referring to the "If you know about Stem Cells, you wont vote for this resolution" comment. Was that the message that you were trying to put out, or did it just come out that way?

What makes an entity "human"? You believe that an embryo is a human life.

Right, I see what you're saying. Yes I believe the embryo is a human life.


I concur that it is a life, though there are lots of things that are "life", such as animals, plants, and bacteria. So obviously it is not the property of "life" by itself that makes a human life valuable.

Well, a human embryo has 46 chromosomes? And it has it's own unique human DNA.

I am told that there are only a few segments of the DNA code seperating us from fruit flies or something of the sort.

Well, I do not know much about that at all - but I know that the DNA is unique and occupies the human embryo. Thus making it human (in my opinion).

Is what makes it valuable that it has human DNA? If so, is a chimp which has 98% of the same DNA we do 98% of the value of a human? Is a dolphin, which has quite possibly significantly more awareness and intelligence than a chimp, less valuable than that chimp because the dolphin's DNA is not as close to human DNA?

Yeah I just mentioned this above - right there are only a few segments seperating us from chimps I guess. But I think that may be irrelevant. The point is the DNA is unique, you know?

Is it potential? That embryo has the potential to become a fully functioning human adult, and so that's why it's valuable? A (hypothetical) 98 year old man has only the potential to waste away and die at the expense of the state and his relatives, so because he doesn't have much potential, he must not be that valuable.

That's very interesting. I'm not entirely sure. To me it is black and white as I had said earlier - if it is human life it is valuable.

Well, animal life is valuable too. All life is really, I suppose. But human life more so (in my opinion).

Is it self-awareness, conciousness? Other animals have that, and we don't value them as much as a human life.

Oh I see what you're getting at. Heh. Interesting.



------------------------------------------------------



Ok, I mocked you because you put out the message that my supporters didn't know squat about Stem Cell research, Im referring to the "If you know about Stem Cells, you wont vote for this resolution" comment. Was that the message that you were trying to put out, or did it just come out that way?

You completely misinterpreted that wrong. I'm sure your supporters know much about stem cell research.

But it is in my opinion that anyone who researches this topic extensively will be convinced that EMBRYONIC stem cell research is frivilous.

All right then, thats all I wanted to know, did you say what you meant or did it just come out that way. And I understand that its youre opinion that its frivilous. I think that with extensive research, we might find Embryonic Stem Cells more efficient and beneficial than Adult Stem Cells.

this shouldn't even be an issue, there are no negatives to stem cell research, an aborted fetus would be thrown out anyway (same can be said for the cord), why is this still a topic?

Yeah I just mentioned this above - right there are only a few segments seperating us from chimps I guess. But I think that may be irrelevant. The point is the DNA is unique, you know?

No, I don't know. All animals have unique DNA. So this makes them special and valuable?

Well, animal life is valuable too. All life is really, I suppose. But human life more so (in my opinion).

In your opinion, indeed. There certainly doesn't seem to be a good argument for it, so you have to rely on opinion. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize what it is and behave accordingly.

All right then, thats all I wanted to know, did you say what you meant or did it just come out that way.

Nikibo, don't you think it would have been better to of asked me this before you completely flamed me and almost got me banned? :rolleyes:

I meant what I said, there were no hidden implications or anything of the sort.

It was in my opinion that people who research the topic of embryonic stem cell research will come to the conclusion it is not needed.

Sorry about getting you almost baaned, like I said before, if I got banned, yay for me. Getting banned is like a one way ticket to Publicity-city when you have a resolution up.

I did send you a telegram, but I feel the need to post here. This, just like many other U.N. actions such as free education for those under 16, are doing nothing more than controlling other nations. It should be a nation's choice whether or not to have things such as this go on in their country. Particularly since the U.N. isn't collecting taxes (with which I wholly agree should not be done), this is a law which is unable to be enforced. You are correct with the scientific freedoms being passed, but this takes it a step further and dictates what every nation should do, and if it isn't done, sanctions or some other punishment will be in effect.

My people should be able to rule my country's policies, not the U.N.

Again, your proposal is admirable but better suited to your own borders rather than the world's.

Thank you,

The President of The Board Elect

Wow, I had like 80 unread telegrams. Sorry about that, and I see where youre coming from and respect your opinion.

OOC: I'm done debating for now everyone.

Although many of you I disagree with, I still respect all of your opinions.

Myrth, sorry for causing some - trouble? - I guess.

Time to take a shower. Peace.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Peace Easy

I freely admit that I have not been present in the debate of this proposal, and I will admit to not reading all 11 pages, so please bear with me if I am repeating someone else's questions.

What does this actually do? From my reading, it seems to 'push' towards funding of stem cell research, but not require any research to actually be carried out. This could translate into countries putting money into some kind of trust fund, which is never accessed by the scientists who need access to it. Is this what is intended by this proposal?

Until and unless I see convincing arguments from either side, I will abstain from voting on this.

Well, you clearly didnt read it, because they put this up by mistake. This was from the my first try at the proposal. An actual copy can be found right on the fron of the UN page. See for yourself!

I freely admit that I have not been present in the debate of this proposal, and I will admit to not reading all 11 pages, so please bear with me if I am repeating someone else's questions.

What does this actually do? From my reading, it seems to 'push' towards funding of stem cell research, but not require any research to actually be carried out. This could translate into countries putting money into some kind of trust fund, which is never accessed by the scientists who need access to it. Is this what is intended by this proposal?

Until and unless I see convincing arguments from either side, I will abstain from voting on this.

That is pretty much my understanding. The official position of the Telidian government is that this resolution is merely a “raising of awareness” exercise, though we will be passing internal legislation to promote research in this area where we feel it is justified.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Again, please you can see a correct copy of the resolution on the front page of the UN

Enn,

This resolution is about embryonic stem cell research - and pushes for funding for it.

Embryonic stem cell research is not the same as the more popular adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cell research is when stem cells are taken from bone marrow, fat, or umbilical cord blood.

Adult stem cell research has shown to work, embryonic stem cell research however - has not.

Embryonic stem cell research is when stem cells are taken from human embryos (thus destroying that human embryo). No one has ever been saved or helped with embryonic stem cells.

This resolution wants to fund research for harvesting stem cells from embryos.

I urge you to take a stand, and vote against this resolution.

Adult stem cell research is great, embryonic stem cell research is not.

Aliste, it is my understanding that the embryos used in stem cell research are to be destroyed anyway. They are not created to be born. I personally do not believe embryos to be alive, so I have no such objection to their being used in such a way.

Nykibo, their is something wrong with my connection to the NationStates site, so I am working off a copy of your proposal on an off-site forum. Upon re-reading, I still see no reason to support this, nor campaign against it.

Aliste, it is my understanding that the embryos used in stem cell research are to be destroyed anyway. They are not created to be born. I personally do not believe embryos to be alive, so I have no such objection to their being used in such a way.

No Enn, that isn't how it works.

A woman donates her 'egg', a man donates his 'sperm'.

The egg is then fertilized in a petri dish and is harvested for stem cells - it is thusly destroyed.

So these embryos are being created specifically to be destroyed. That's called playing God. That's unethical - that's science gone too far.

Not only that, but adult stem cell research is much more promising.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I personally do not believe embryos to be alive,

Hell, Enn, that's just nonsense. Bacteria are alive. Plants are alive. Fish are alive. Reptiles are alive. Mammals are alive. Human embryos are alive. That's really not what's questionable here. You need to ask yourself what value you think that life has. Is it as valuable as a two-month-old human? Is it as valuable as a six-month-old human? Is it as valuable at two years? Ten? Adolescence? Adulthood? Old age? What makes one thing that is alive more valuable than another thing that's alive, Enn? What makes a thing that's alive at one stage of its development better than that thing at a later stage at its development?

My god, I take a shower and come back to find you attacking my proposal behind my back. Honestly! :p :sniper: Anyways Enn, my resolution is to make it so that Embryonic Stem Cells can be researched. With extensive research, we may find that Embryonic Stem Cells are more efficient and beneficial than Adult Stem Cells, seeing as Adult Stem Cells cannot be turned into all the kinds of tissues and cells, but Embryonic Cells may have this ability. The only way to find out is to fund proper research.

I don't understand this mania about putting legal limits on life. If there is an embryo, it divides, contains a genetic code and has the ability to sustain itself, it is alive, regardless of what some fat bastard in a suit says.

To make this clear: NATURE IS NOT BOUND BY MAN's LAW!

In other words: If you pass a law that says that an unborn child really is not alive, you are a moron.

By the same token, somebody could pass an initiative that says that I am not alive, and it would be 'legal,' as would killing me, yet it goes against everything in society to do so.

But the law says...

My god, I take a shower and come back to find you attacking my proposal behind my back. Honestly! :p :sniper: Anyways Enn, my resolution is to make it so that Embryonic Stem Cells can be researched. With extensive research, we may find that Embryonic Stem Cells are more efficient and beneficial than Adult Stem Cells, seeing as Adult Stem Cells cannot be turned into all the kinds of tissues and cells, but Embryonic Cells may have this ability. The only way to find out is to fund proper research.

I'm not attacking your proposal. Others have done that job, and well before I got here. I do think that this proposal respects national sovereignty, which I like, but there's no compelling reason for me to vote for it in light of some of the arguments brought forward here and elsewhere. Just an FYI.

Not you, you're ok, I meant Aliste :p

Not you, you're ok, I meant Aliste :p

Oh. Sorry. :(

It would help if you could quote the post you are referring to so it's clearer, though.

Dont be sorry, Im the unclear one, lol

Not you, you're ok, I meant Aliste.

Oh so now I'm NOT ok? Because I disagree with you?

It's called criticism, cry me a river. :p

Theres criticism, then theres continusly turning people away with lies.

Turning people away with lies?

Hm, right - could you point out these lies? Because in actuallity, the arguments I'm making are valid.

You just do not want to admit that your resolution is frivilous and unethical.

EDIT: And just for the record, calling me a liar is a low blow. Trying to attack my credibility to get prying eyes off of your lazy arguments.

A) It isn't frivolous
B) I admit some people see it as unethical

EDIT: Wow, you're so sad...

Once again, I ask that you point out these 'lies'. :)

EDIT: So as to allow me to dismiss them and uphold my credibility - that which you are attacking.

I am not a liar. :)

eat A Baby Fetus For Jesus!!!

No Enn, that isn't how it works.

A woman donates her 'egg', a man donates his 'sperm'.

The egg is then fertilized in a petri dish and is harvested for stem cells - it is thusly destroyed.

So these embryos are being created specifically to be destroyed. That's called playing God. That's unethical - that's science gone too far.

Not only that, but adult stem cell research is much more promising.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

If creating life is playing God, then the average person plays god at least once in their life.

Yes, the embryos are created just to be destroyed. But keep in mind we're talking about science, which in real life is currently altering sheep to produce spider silk instead of wool, playing with the genetic code of most forms of life with impunity, and has not only cloned animals but is well on its way to cloning a human. And many NS nations have gone far beyond that. Now's a little late for ethics.

No, playing God is not creating life.

Playing God is creating life with every intention to take it.

A mentality of disposable human lives.

If creating life is playing God, then the average person plays god at least once in their life.

Yes, the embryos are created just to be destroyed. But keep in mind we're talking about science, which in real life is currently altering sheep to produce spider silk instead of wool, playing with the genetic code of most forms of life with impunity, and has not only cloned animals but is well on its way to cloning a human. And many NS nations have gone far beyond that. Now's a little late for ethics.

It's called playing human. You have sex and produce a child by union of sperm and egg. Anything different is playing God, by changing this natural process. For example: Taking this fertilized egg, harvesting its stem cells and throwing it in a sanitary disposal unit marked 'biohazard.'

No, playing God is not creating life.

Playing God is creating life with every intention to take it.

A mentality of disposable human lives.

Ever read the Bible much? What is the one thing God is most famous for? Answer: Creation of everything, including life. The mere fact they are messing around with genetics is them playing God. They are looking at the sentences that make up life, finding they don't like what they are reading, and editting.

It's called playing human. You have sex and produce a child by union of sperm and egg. Anything different is playing God, by changing this natural process. For example: Taking this fertilized egg, harvesting its stem cells and throwing it in a sanitary disposal unit marked 'biohazard.'

That first sentence was sarcasm...

That first sentence was sarcasm...

How so?

Hell, Enn, that's just nonsense. Bacteria are alive. Plants are alive. Fish are alive. Reptiles are alive. Mammals are alive. Human embryos are alive. That's really not what's questionable here. You need to ask yourself what value you think that life has. Is it as valuable as a two-month-old human? Is it as valuable as a six-month-old human? Is it as valuable at two years? Ten? Adolescence? Adulthood? Old age? What makes one thing that is alive more valuable than another thing that's alive, Enn? What makes a thing that's alive at one stage of its development better than that thing at a later stage at its development?
Disclaimer: This post is about my own opinion, which while being based upon my reading of scientific work, is not the opinion of a qualified obstetrician, gynaecologist or any other scientist.

No, Texan, I actually don't think embryos are alive. An embryo (as distinct to a foetus) does not, as I understand it, have a heartbeat, a brain or a nervous system. The heart is the first of these to develop, but even then I do not consider the embryo to be alive. The brain and nervous system do not develop until much later in the pregnancy, when it is no longer an embryo but instead a foetus. I do not believe that the organism could be considered alive while still in the embryonic stage. If this seems and unethical, well, this is simply my own opinion as I made clear at the start of the post.

Perhaps a good place to start any side of an argument is to get informed.

The AAAS report on stem cell research contains tons of info on both the science and societical concerns and procedures behind stem cell research:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/report.pdf

Personally, I find that it is not supporting enough of a science that has a HUGE potential, especially from an organization that publishes the very famous and well-respected journal Science. Even if you don't agree with their recommendations for whatever reason, it is still full of info, both scientific and descriptions of the manjor moral and religious arguments.

Finally, a question: why do there seem to be so many people who will defend an embryo to their last dying breath, while allowing persons that those embyros become to be debilitated by poverty and disease? That, to me, is playing "God".

An embryo (as distinct to a foetus) does not, as I understand it, have a heartbeat, a brain or a nervous system.

And? Do you know what the embryo does not have a heart or brain or nervous system?

It is a human in it's earliest forms of development. It is a human life.

Science disagrees with you my friend, the one thing that religion and science agree with is that human life begins at conception.

Vastiva prefers a simple definition, which takes into account the religious beliefs of a portion of our population.

We believe a fetus is not an individual until it is (a) outside the body; (b) independant of the mothers body; and (c) has taken its first independant breath.

Fetuses not being people, have no rights. The rights of the "host" are considered superior in all cases.


Science disagrees with you my friend, the one thing that religion and science agree with is that human life begins at conception.

No, they do not. That some choose to believe such is as relevant as those who believe the world is flat.

Finally, a question: why do there seem to be so many people who will defend an embryo to their last dying breath, while allowing persons that those embyros become to be debilitated by poverty and disease? That, to me, is playing "God".

You've asked one of the great questions - why is birth considered "sacred", but what happens afterwards "you're own damned fault"?

Everyone pay close attention.

Vastiva is not arguing that the embryo is not a human life - s/he is arguing that they are not people.

This is the new modern day argument - only a few uneducated group still argue that the embryo is not alive. Heh.

But this is the new modern day argument, that the embryo is not a PERSON.

Which, I'd have to agree with. The embryo is not a person.

However, I feel it is irrelevant - because all that aside, it is a human life. And a human life must be protected.

No, they do not. That some choose to believe such is as relevant as those who believe the world is flat.

Yes, they do - show me one article where a scientist/doctor/physician claims the fetus is not alive.

(Just for the record, I'm just going to say that the belief in a God is about faith, hope and trust, which are all important to human nature.)

If your arguement against any issue involves 'The Bible' or 'God', you need to rethink your arguement. First off, each religion has it's own religious text and the idea that only one is the correct version is a little ethnocentric. Secondly, 'The Bible' no longer exists on the face of this Earth. There is no possible way that a thousand year old, dead language (Latin) can be translated perfectly, not including the times of revolution in Europe when "editting" a few texts and words would benefit the church. Then the fact that reading 'The Bible' in German and reading it in English is similar to reading 'The Crucible' and 'The Scarlet Letter', then calling them the same. So please use some common sense before saying "God says this" because only one thing will ever know what God/Allah/Buddha//Jesus or any true being said, themselves.

If your arguement against any issue involves 'The Bible', you need to rethink your arguement.

I'm not religious - therefor religion will not play a role in how I feel about any specific issue.

Secondly, 'The Bible' no longer exists on the face of this Earth. There is no possible way that a thousand year old, dead language (Latin) can be translated perfectly, not including the times of revolution in Europe when "editting" a few texts and words would benefit the church.

Why are you specifically mentioning 'The Bible' ? I love it when people just assume that is your religion - some Judeo-Christian faith.

So please use some common sense before saying "God says this" because only one thing will ever know what God/Allah/Buddha//Jesus or any true being said, themselves.

No one mentioned anything about God other than "playing God" which is not a religious statement - at all - in the least.

Vastiva prefers a simple definition, which takes into account the religious beliefs of a portion of our population.

We believe a fetus is not an individual until it is (a) outside the body; (b) independant of the mothers body; and (c) has taken its first independant breath.

Fetuses not being people, have no rights. The rights of the "host" are considered superior in all cases.



No, they do not. That some choose to believe such is as relevant as those who believe the world is flat.

First off, I would like to point out that thanks to your argument, animals not being people, also do not have rights, and are subject to becoming my next meal.

FURTHERMORE:

To think that life begins at conception is not religion, it's common sense. Once the sperm and ovum are unified, the result will contonue to develop throughout its lifetime. A man and woman do not create life when the woman gives birth...that's almost like saying that babies come from storks. Life starts small. It's not like 'OH! a baby just came from nowhere all the sudden!"

What does it matter whether the baby is inside or outside the woman's body? Is it not the same when it is born then when its head is still in the cervix and killing it is legal? I don't think so.

Though I do agree that the baby is dependent upon the mother for sustenence, it is a completely different being and organism, having traits from 2 (or in extremely rare cases 3) parents. It cannot be considered part of the mother's body.

What does breath matter? It is symbolic, no more.

And whether or not fetuses have rights is no for you to decide, though you are entitled to your own opinion.

I wasn't talking about you, actually, I'm just slow at typing, sorry about that. I had a better statement, but my computer froze up on me (why I keep editting this), so I had to restart it, that's why I added all the other religious icons at the end, that wasn't supposed to be a 'God' arguement, just a rebuttal to the 'playing God' response

* lol, see, I couldn't even get there in time

First off, I would like to point out that thanks to your argument, animals not being people, also do not have rights, and are subject to becoming my next meal.

Of course.



FURTHERMORE:

To think that life begins at conception is not religion, it's common sense. Once the sperm and ovum are unified, the result will contonue to develop throughout its lifetime. A man and woman do not create life when the woman gives birth...that's almost like saying that babies come from storks. Life starts small. It's not like 'OH! a baby just came from nowhere all the sudden!"

Terribly sorry, but it is not "common sense". We do not even believe it to be sensible.

First, your arguement states that "life begins". That would imply the mother is not alive, the father is not alive, that there is no life anywhere until conception. Ridiculous.

Second, "create life". Really? Please create a flying purple people eater, independantly mobile and completely alive. You cannot. Ergo, you are "creating" nothing. This is the body carrying the same processes it does when it grows, heals, expands, and nothing more.

Third, "life starts". Life started on this planet "billions" of years ago. If that turns out to be millions, so be it - no difference, the point being 'life started long before conception, and shall continue long after demise'.

Terminology insists you limit your discussion to the "independant life" of this particular mass of cells.



What does it matter whether the baby is inside or outside the woman's body? Is it not the same when it is born then when its head is still in the cervix and killing it is legal? I don't think so.

To Vastiva, it is. Until all three are satisfied, it is not considered a independant person. And no, it is not "killing" any more then cutting off a gangrenous finger is "murder" or a flu shot is "genocide". True, our government works to limit the practice, to the point of offering incentives for adoption. But we do not limit the rights of the mother to choose up to the point of individuality. Period.

Why, you may ask? Because it is not Vastiva's intention to "Play God". Therefore, we leave the choices and the responsibility for those choices to the individual, not the state, not any other entity.



Though I do agree that the baby is dependent upon the mother for sustenence, it is a completely different being and organism, having traits from 2 (or in extremely rare cases 3) parents. It cannot be considered part of the mother's body.

Very well, remove it immediately upon conception. As it is "independant life", it should be fine on its own.

Experiments state you are wrong. As such, it is a parasite until it is an independant life.



What does breath matter? It is symbolic, no more.


Stop breathing and you shall see how it matters. The ability to breathe on ones own demonstrates in good part the ability of independant respiration.



And whether or not fetuses have rights is no for you to decide, though you are entitled to your own opinion.

From the "Resolution Rights and Duties of UN States":


A Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States:

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

We have decided. No more needs be said.

(Just for the record, I'm just going to say that the belief in a God is about faith, hope and trust, which are all important to human nature.)

If your arguement against any issue involves 'The Bible' or 'God', you need to rethink your arguement. First off, each religion has it's own religious text and the idea that only one is the correct version is a little ethnocentric. Secondly, 'The Bible' no longer exists on the face of this Earth. There is no possible way that a thousand year old, dead language (Latin) can be translated perfectly, not including the times of revolution in Europe when "editting" a few texts and words would benefit the church. Then the fact that reading 'The Bible' in German and reading it in English is similar to reading 'The Crucible' and 'The Scarlet Letter', then calling them the same. So please use some common sense before saying "God says this" because only one thing will ever know what God/Allah/Buddha//Jesus or any true being said, themselves.

The Bible was brought up in the portion where we argued about at what point science started playing God. Which religion pretty much doesn't matter.

But as I pointed out, "Playing God" is a very everyday term - it shows no bias towards any one religion.

It is not a religious term or anything like that.

Of course.




Terribly sorry, but it is not "common sense". We do not even believe it to be sensible.

First, your arguement states that "life begins". That would imply the mother is not alive, the father is not alive, that there is no life anywhere until conception. Ridiculous.

Second, "create life". Really? Please create a flying purple people eater, independantly mobile and completely alive. You cannot. Ergo, you are "creating" nothing. This is the body carrying the same processes it does when it grows, heals, expands, and nothing more.

Third, "life starts". Life started on this planet "billions" of years ago. If that turns out to be millions, so be it - no difference, the point being 'life started long before conception, and shall continue long after demise'.

Terminology insists you limit your discussion to the "independant life" of this particular mass of cells.




To Vastiva, it is. Until all three are satisfied, it is not considered a independant person. And no, it is not "killing" any more then cutting off a gangrenous finger is "murder" or a flu shot is "genocide". True, our government works to limit the practice, to the point of offering incentives for adoption. But we do not limit the rights of the mother to choose up to the point of individuality. Period.

Why, you may ask? Because it is not Vastiva's intention to "Play God". Therefore, we leave the choices and the responsibility for those choices to the individual, not the state, not any other entity.

Very well, remove it immediately upon conception. As it is "independant life", it should be fine on its own.

Experiments state you are wrong. As such, it is a parasite until it is an independant life.


Stop breathing and you shall see how it matters. The ability to breathe on ones own demonstrates in good part the ability of independant respiration.


From the "Resolution Rights and Duties of UN States":

We have decided. No more needs be said.


I would like to point out that most everything in your post was nothing but technicalities. See, when I say something, I give people the chance to interpret it as any logical person would, and not how people would not. The life of the CHILD begins at conception, not the life of the parent. Your create HUMAN life, (as you are a human) not a purple people eater.

The child is dependent upon the mother for sustenance, but it is an entirely different being, quite capable of surviving if given the proper environment till it is able to do so on its own.

Oi vey... You people never let up do you? You're writing new posts faster than I can read the back ones from where I disappeared for a few hours. Anyway, I give my thanks to Aliste for pointing out that article. I am always happy to be informed. I admit that I harbor a great respect for Aliste and the proposals patron.

The official position of the Galadisian government is to fund all forms of stem cell research and as such we will be voting in favor of this proposal. However, I must give a little aide here to Aliste for being more thorough in research than myself.

first of, I must agree that an embryo IS alive by the definition of the world cell. A cell is, and I quote Merriam-Webster, the smallest structural unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning, consisting of one or more nuclei, cytoplasm, and various organelles, all surrounded by a semipermeable cell membrane. Amongst all that mumbo-jumbo is the term "organism" therefore anything made of cells is by definition an organism and is therefore by definition alive.

Also, kudos to Aliste, it appears that he is correct and that an aborted fetus is not a suitable source of embryonic stem cells as in most abortions it has developed beyond use and when it has not developed to far it is impossible to obtain. However, I do not acquiesce in my assertion that we do not need to breed embryo's specifically for this purpose. There is still a surplus embryos from invitro-fertilization and of course donted cells. Petri-dish babies in my opinion are not viable as they can not become a human unless palced in a mother.

With that I still have the upmost respect for all the debaters here (well save LordDemon... I can't remember it... and that's a joke Myrth). I can respect the position of Aliste and it upgrades my respect for him that he continues to fight for what he beleives. I do beleive in making informed decisions.

Caras Galadon,

Although disagreeing with you, I must say your arguments are very well thought out and articulate.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If the resolution passes I will attempt to repeal it, if it fails to be repealed - I will propose a resolution invalidating the resolution and in it's place stating that all nations must fund their own embryonic stem cell research individually.

If that fails, I think I will leave it be unless I come closer than expected to having a proposal or repeal passed.

Thank you for your civilized and pleasant manner, while debating and disagreeing with me.

After all, good people can disagree. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The peoples of Phunktopia, not having fully been accepted into the UN, still would like to sound off on this issue. The question of when life begins has been discussed. The statement "It is either life, or not life, human or not human" is a simplification at best. When does Soul become Funk? When does Blues become Rock N Roll?

How many grains of sand must you add to a pile before it becomes a sand dune. The point is that the "Either/Or" Dogma of the Black/White thinkers is an over simplification. All things fall on a scale and that includes life.

A Virus has traits of the living and the innanimate. Certain single celled organisms fall under Animal and Plant catagories. Is it so far of a stretch to say that an embryo goes through stages of life and humanity? As the UN representative for Phunktropia, I say No.

Thus, if accepted into the UN, we will support this resolution.

The peoples of Phunktopia, not having fully been accepted into the UN, still would like to sound off on this issue. The question of when life begins has been discussed. The statement "It is either life, or not life, human or not human" is a simplification at best.

Oh! Sounds like Phunktropia has some arguments for us! Shoot guy, let's hear them...

When does Soul become Funk? When does Blues become Rock N Roll?

Huh? What is that, some sort of - "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" :confused:

How many grains of sand must you add to a pile before it becomes a sand dune.

Whoa! Easy on the ganja there Greg Allman! Heh. Getting a little spacey there.

The point is that the "Either/Or" Dogma of the Black/White thinkers is an over simplification. All things fall on a scale and that includes life.

No, life does not fall onto the same scale as a sand dune, or 'sould becoming funk'. Life either is or it isn't. Heh. You are alive or you are dead.

But as I pointed out, "Playing God" is a very everyday term - it shows no bias towards any one religion.

It is not a religious term or anything like that.

Actually, by the mere mention of God and the idea it conveys, it is religious. It conveys the idea of a person trying to take over the role of a being supposed to have created everything, whether it be Zeus, Allah, or Bob's Pet Goat.

Now, to go ahead and argue what I hope would be your reply to this:
But, does any of that matter in this arguement beyond being pure semantics? No, it doesn't. What matters is if that is what they are trying to do, if it is ethical to try, and where they should stop. What does matter is if they are taking human lives or not. Semantics is fine in an arguement about a definition, but not fine when it comes to something as important as this.

Caras Galadon- My job here is too argue what I know to be facts and try to look out for my nation. That is true of everyone. I don't care if you respect me for my tactics. I do care if you respect me, only if I have represented my side enough.

Also, cells of the human body are incapable of surviving outside the body unless placed in an environment that mimics what they need from the human body. It is only single-celled organisms that are capable of surviving as a single cell. Zygotes are not capable of survival in that way.

The peoples of Phunktopia, not having fully been accepted into the UN, still would like to sound off on this issue. The question of when life begins has been discussed. The statement "It is either life, or not life, human or not human" is a simplification at best. When does Soul become Funk? When does Blues become Rock N Roll?

How many grains of sand must you add to a pile before it becomes a sand dune. The point is that the "Either/Or" Dogma of the Black/White thinkers is an over simplification. All things fall on a scale and that includes life.

A Virus has traits of the living and the innanimate. Certain single celled organisms fall under Animal and Plant catagories. Is it so far of a stretch to say that an embryo goes through stages of life and humanity? As the UN representative for Phunktropia, I say No.

Thus, if accepted into the UN, we will support this resolution.

The blue/rock&roll example is anything but apt, seeing as it is created by humans, thereby it is always subject to opinion in regards to where it stands.

Life is definite. Either something is dead or it is alive, or it is neither, in which case it will remain inanimate. Every embryo is a combination of two living parents, and is itself living, or else it would not survive. It cannot be dead and suddenly live when it begins to think. Embryos, though they do not go through stages of humanity, do go through many other developmental stages that are equivalent.

And as to the other question: It takes 1.32467364x10^787 grains of sand to be considered a dune.

The term I used, "Playing God" does not imply that I am religious.

"God" in that term is being used to portray a creator or being better than ourselves. It is not being used in any religious way in that term.

Everyone pay close attention.

Vastiva is not arguing that the embryo is not a human life - s/he is arguing that they are not people.

This is the new modern day argument - only a few uneducated group still argue that the embryo is not alive. Heh.

But this is the new modern day argument, that the embryo is not a PERSON.

Which, I'd have to agree with. The embryo is not a person.

However, I feel it is irrelevant - because all that aside, it is a human life. And a human life must be protected.


In your arguement, you have just made haircuts and surgery illegal, as both hair folicles and endodermal cells are "human life" by your definition. This makes your final line ludicrous.

We also disagree that "a human life must be protected". An independant human chooses their own path, makes their own decisions, reaps their own consequences.

If, as you say, "A human life must be protected", what do you do with serial killers? Do you spend all your budget on feeding the poor? If I might direct your attention to "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand - that is, if you are the sort who reads about the inevitable conclusion of such positions - you might become enlightened.

Vastiva is a nation. We would think that was self-evident.

im sorry, i will not fund somthing like this...its not fair to just kill an embryo just to get some research done! Its inhuman!

An embryo in my opinion is a living thing!

MY VOTE IS AGAINST THIS INTOLERABLE ACT!

In your arguement, you have just made haircuts and surgery illegal, as both hair folicles and endodermal cells are "human life" by your definition. This makes your final line ludicrous.

Haircuts and surgery illegal? Let me repost my final line: "However, I feel it is irrelevant - because all that aside, it is a human life. And a human life must be protected."

So that makes surgery and haircuts illegal? Are we looking at the same thing? Heh.

Please explain this one in great detail, I have a feeling this will be quite funny.

Caras Galadon- My job here is too argue what I know to be facts and try to look out for my nation. That is true of everyone. I don't care if you respect me for my tactics. I do care if you respect me, only if I have represented my side enough.

Also, cells of the human body are incapable of surviving outside the body unless placed in an environment that mimics what they need from the human body. It is only single-celled organisms that are capable of surviving as a single cell. Zygotes are not capable of survival in that way.


Sorry, I didn't mean that offensively, rather it was meant as a pun on your nation name which I find quite impossible to remember or for that matter spell if it is not directly in front of me. Anywho, I did not mean to imply that I don't respect you, I actually do soley on the basis of your contructive help regarding my environmental proposal.

Anyway, to the substantive portion, bacteria cannot survive outside certain conditions, the point is that if something is a cell it is by definition alive. Now, how long it stays alive is another matter entirely, I kill a few hundred million bacteria every time I brush my teeth, although I have never been charged with murder.

It is for that reason that I would agree that life is not a black and white issue, as seen there is considerable controversy and there is no real logical reason why, say, human life is more valuable than say a dolphin which potentially is just as intelligent and such as a human. Of course, we as humans feel ourselves as more valuable than the dolphin but I'm rather sure the dolphin, if it can feel, feels the exact same. My major thought is that an embryo, being unitelligent and not self aware, not equally valuable as the fully developed humans which are intelligent and self-aware. There is no logical way that I can prove this to anyone however.

Isn't a stem cell DNA? Why can't they get the "stem cell" from a piece of skin or blood or something of that nature?

Stem Cell research is a crock!

Haircuts and surgery illegal? Let me repost my final line: "However, I feel it is irrelevant - because all that aside, it is a human life. And a human life must be protected."

So that makes surgery and haircuts illegal? Are we looking at the same thing? Heh.

Please explain this one in great detail, I have a feeling this will be quite funny.

An endodermal skin cell - by your definition - is "human life". So is a cancer cell. Therefore, by your stating "all human life must be protected", you are asking that all cellular lives involved in a human be protected.

Therefore, you have outlawed most medicine, have you not? Skin dies when removed, cancer dies in chemotherapy.

Consistancy is one characteristic we value.

I would like to point out that most everything in your post was nothing but technicalities. See, when I say something, I give people the chance to interpret it as any logical person would, and not how people would not. The life of the CHILD begins at conception, not the life of the parent. Your create HUMAN life, (as you are a human) not a purple people eater.

The child is dependent upon the mother for sustenance, but it is an entirely different being, quite capable of surviving if given the proper environment till it is able to do so on its own.

There is no point before that which we stated in which one life is separate from the other. Ergo, being both a part of the same whole, they are one. As such, the mother has all the say over all her parts. Simple logic.

You have not been able to state any of my definitions as incorrect, and as such, make emotional arguements about them - interesting tactic, but of no use logically.

As the "environment" is within another being, it is a parasite.

An endodermal skin cell - by your definition - is "human life". So is a cancer cell. Therefore, by your stating "all human life must be protected", you are asking that all cellular lives involved in a human be protected.

Therefore, you have outlawed most medicine, have you not? Skin dies when removed, cancer dies in chemotherapy.

Consistancy is one characteristic we value.

That is not what they are saying! What they are saying is that they think that a human life should be protected...not the cells inside! Just the living breathing human body! You shouldn't have to kill a homosapian just to get research...that why people (after they die) are donated to science!

An endodermal skin cell - by your definition - is "human life". So is a cancer cell. Therefore, by your stating "all human life must be protected", you are asking that all cellular lives involved in a human be protected.

An endodermal skin cell is not "human life" by my definition and absolutely not a cancer cell! Rofl!

How in the hell is an endodermal skin cell and a cancer cell a "human life" by my definition?

In fact I never even gave a definition for what is "human life".

I simply stated that a human life is created when a woman's egg is fertilized.

Caras Galadon,

Although disagreeing with you, I must say your arguments are very well thought out and articulate.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If the resolution passes I will attempt to repeal it, if it fails to be repealed - I will propose a resolution invalidating the resolution and in it's place stating that all nations must fund their own embryonic stem cell research individually.

If that fails, I think I will leave it be unless I come closer than expected to having a proposal or repeal passed.

Thank you for your civilized and pleasant manner, while debating and disagreeing with me.

After all, good people can disagree. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

*sigh*

The proposal does not state you have to fund anything, only that you "push for funding". There is also no statement that nations must fund other nations projects. Realistically, it is a very weak proposal.

Read the proposal before you go off on its (nonexistant) "bad points".

That is not what they are saying! What they are saying is that they think that a human life should be protected...not the cells inside! Just the living breathing human body! You shouldn't have to kill a homosapian just to get research...that why people (after they die) are donated to science!

I agree entirely - the human mother (the "living breathing human body") should enjoy protection. The cells inside should not be protected - just as you stated.

Thank you for your support.

Hmmmm.

Vastiva is correct, the proposal is weak.

"In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits."

I completely missed that, "funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, IF THEY SO DESIRE TO RESEARCH STEM CELLS AND THEIR BENEFITS."

How did I miss that? Wow - what a moron I am.

Thanks Vastiva! :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

*sigh*

The proposal does not state you have to fund anything, only that you "push for funding". There is also no statement that nations must fund other nations projects. Realistically, it is a very weak proposal.

Read the proposal before you go off on its (nonexistant) "bad points".

Actually it is YOU who should read the proposal... I shall quote bolding important sections


The use of Stem Cells is an amazing new breakthrough in the fields of science and medicine. Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases, including Cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. But while the list of diseases that Stem Cells could cure gets longer and longer, the amount of what little funding is present continues to dwindle. I admit, some people do insist that harvesting something from a human as if it was an experiment is immoral, but allowing millions of people to die each day is much worse. This is the best chance we have at beating these diseases. The one thing standing in the way of this is funding. Stem Cell Research is very costly, and without proper funding, this plane will never take off the ground. In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits. I urge my fellow UN members to stand up to these diseases, and fund Stem Cell Research.



In my reading this does mandate the funding of stem cells. Specifically it mandates the funding of embryonic stem cell research. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Further reading I beleive that the "if they so desire" is if the scientists so desrie as the government cannot outlaw the practice anway.

Mea culpa, am working off an old draft. So be it.

Does it state "significant" or even "adequate" funding? No.

Send a dollar if you disagree. You're in compliance.

In my reading this does mandate the funding of stem cells. Specifically it mandates the funding of embryonic stem cell research. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Well, it is a weak proposal as Vastiva pointed out.

See, it mentions that if the scientists of the nations would like funding for embryonic stem cell research - they will be given funding.

It does not legalize embryonic stem cell research in all U.N. nations - so I can still make it illegal in my own country.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Well, it is a weak proposal as Vastiva pointed out.

See, it mentions that if the scientists of the nations would like funding for embryonic stem cell research - they will be given funding.

It does not legalize embryonic stem cell research in all U.N. nations - so I can still make it illegal in my own country.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Good, now you're catching on.

Well, it is a weak proposal as Vastiva pointed out.

See, it mentions that if the scientists of the nations would like funding for embryonic stem cell research - they will be given funding.

It does not legalize embryonic stem cell research in all U.N. nations - so I can still make it illegal in my own country.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Embryonic research is already legal because of hte proposal "scientific freedom" though. Therefore you must of course grant them funding for it. Now of course I guess you could limit it to a single dollar but even that is mroe than what I feel you want and I think you're still right for arguing against it if you do not support such research.

I agree entirely - the human mother (the "living breathing human body") should enjoy protection. The cells inside should not be protected - just as you stated.

Thank you for your support.


No Problem

Embryonic research is already legal because of hte proposal "scientific freedom" though. Therefore you must of course grant them funding for it. Now of course I guess you could limit it to a single dollar but even that is mroe than what I feel you want and I think you're still right for arguing against it if you do not support such research.

Now I am angry again. :mad:

Guh, for a second I thought maybe it was no big deal - that the resolution had not a leg to stand on.

But now I see that already embryonic stem cell research is legal and this is just going to fund it further!

Something must be done, this is out of control.

There are so many things wrong with the "Scientific Freedom" resolution - I will request to repeal it A.S.A.P.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Now I am angry again. :mad:
Unless of course you would care to attempt to prove that scientists studying embryonic stem cells are irresponsible or non-peaceful, but not even I think that it is even remotely possible to attempt to debate and I will debate with you on whether or not the earth is round or not for the sake of debate. Erm, somehow I think we've hijacked this topic into ways of getting around the proposal? Erm...

Now I am angry again. :mad:

Guh, for a second I thought maybe it was no big deal - that the resolution had not a leg to stand on.

But now I see that already embryonic stem cell research is legal and this is just going to fund it further!

Something must be done, this is out of control.

There are so many things wrong with the "Scientific Freedom" resolution - I will request to repeal it A.S.A.P.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

*sigh*

Read the proposal and the resolution. Again. Figure out what it does. Then go for a walk.

Fund stem cells with a dollar, and get on with your life.

Moral issues aside, the only problem I have with this is that there is no hard proof that stems cell can cure any diseases. There is great potential, yes, but it is not a guarantee.

Random Lands, good point.

Even if you are not like me, and feel that there is no moral problem with embryonic stem cell research - still it does nothing to dismiss the fact that embryonic stem cells have yet to help anyone or 'save' anyone.

Besides, with adult stem cell research being brought to the point where adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to be just as potent as embryonic stem cells - there really is no need to pour money into this research.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Science aside for a moment...

Since there was a bill that already protects individual nations rights to pursue scientific studies of their choice, why do we need this one?

OOC: Having read the responses to my post, I have decided to clarify my position. Yes, embryos are alive (in the broadest possible sense of the term) - I have realised this. However, I agree with Vastiva that they cannot be classed as persons.

IC: Under Ennish Law, embryos are not persons. As such they do not have access to the rights granted to persons. The Council of Enn has decided that it is in the best interests of its citizens for embryonic stem cell research to proceed, and has thus decided to support this resolution.

Science aside for a moment...

Since there was a bill that already protects individual nations rights to pursue scientific studies of their choice, why do we need this one?
This bill puts one science (embryonic stem cell research) above others in terms of funding.

Sorry, I didn't mean that offensively, rather it was meant as a pun on your nation name which I find quite impossible to remember or for that matter spell if it is not directly in front of me. Anywho, I did not mean to imply that I don't respect you, I actually do soley on the basis of your contructive help regarding my environmental proposal.

Pun my nation as much as you want. I once took the name DemonLordEngima just to poke fun at myself.

Anyway, to the substantive portion, bacteria cannot survive outside certain conditions, the point is that if something is a cell it is by definition alive. Now, how long it stays alive is another matter entirely, I kill a few hundred million bacteria every time I brush my teeth, although I have never been charged with murder.

You just eliminate over 700 planned arguements with one stroke. Happily, I am not surprised.

I have a list of the requirements of life somewhere. I'll hunt them down. It pretty much explains why viruses are not alive and presents a good arguement for even fetuses to not be alive, even though I do not accept the idea of a fetus not being alive (too much development at that point for it to be anything but in my eyes).

It is for that reason that I would agree that life is not a black and white issue, as seen there is considerable controversy and there is no real logical reason why, say, human life is more valuable than say a dolphin which potentially is just as intelligent and such as a human. Of course, we as humans feel ourselves as more valuable than the dolphin but I'm rather sure the dolphin, if it can feel, feels the exact same. My major thought is that an embryo, being unitelligent and not self aware, not equally valuable as the fully developed humans which are intelligent and self-aware. There is no logical way that I can prove this to anyone however.

In the end, I must ask if it matters. That is always a consideration. And, in the end, I must say it does.

The proof issue is one that needs to be gone over more carefully than I have time.

This bill puts one science (embryonic stem cell research) above others in terms of funding.

Sounds a bit TOO specific to be handled at the international level. That's my big issue with it.

Random Lands, good point.

Even if you are not like me, and feel that there is no moral problem with embryonic stem cell research - still it does nothing to dismiss the fact that embryonic stem cells have yet to help anyone or 'save' anyone.

Besides, with adult stem cell research being brought to the point where adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to be just as potent as embryonic stem cells - there really is no need to pour money into this research.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

"Why bother trying to get to outer space? No one has done it yet."
"Why bother trying to make a cure for cancer? No one has done it yet."
"Why bother trying to research a way to cure polio? No one has done it yet."

My, don't you look a tad foolish in view of what has come before.

And I repeat - to be in compliance, send a dollar.

You now that if this resolution passes you'll waste alot of money in funding it. Also anyone could just use stem cell research for cloning. Please reply back.

You now that if this resolution passes you'll waste alot of money in funding it. Also anyone could just use stem cell research for cloning. Please reply back.

No, you really can't. You need DNA, not stem cells, for that. I can use a sample of your blood or hair to clone you. I don't need stem cells at all.

I doen't like the current proposal for embryonic research for the following reasons:

1: the protection of scientific research is already covered by an earlier proposal.
2: This would require nations to fund programs that they may be morally opposed to.
3: It is too specific of an issue to be handled at the international level. Mainly because it is too politically charged and not enough is known about it for us politicians to even make a decent decision.


~ (Title yet to be determined) of Marianico

There is nothing too specific to be made into a UN proposal. There are some things which are "beneath notice", but Vastiva cannot see this as falling into that category.

Votes For: 4,771

Votes Against: 993


YOW! Five to one for?

The glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda fails to see why this resolution should be supported. It is written extremely badly, something we do not want to encourage any further. Secondly, this is a national issue. Combined with the Scientific Freedom resolution, this resolution is simply not necessary. There is also a distinct lack of internationality in this issue to make it worthy of UN attention. Finally, a lot of claims are made but we fail to see why our government should be involved in funding if this is so amazing. There should be plenty of medical companies around eager to make money on this - let them invest in it.

In short, we shall not support this proposal, and if our region does not object we will consider voting against this proposal. All we will support is a "how to write UN resolutions" course for the author.

We are with Groot Gouda!

Perfect arguments, nothing more to say.

Votes For: 5,141

Votes Against: 1,062

Still running five to one. We project it will pass, and with a landslide.

I just forget: if this proposal pass, UN will fall in complete descredit for support absurd proposals, for don't know own resolutions and for not know what is natioanl and what is international.

People in Larica think it's tima to create a conseul in Un to read all proposals before we have to fote it.

I just forget: if this proposal pass, UN will fall in complete descredit for support absurd proposals, for don't know own resolutions and for not know what is natioanl and what is international.

People in Larica think it's tima to create a conseul in Un to read all proposals before we have to fote it.

Haven't been here long, have you? Reread all the past resolutions. You'll see what I mean.

OK, here's my take (anyone familiar with my posts will know that once I utter those words a long winded blather follows so settle down in a comfy chair with a cup/glass of your caffeinated beverage of choice or skip on by if you have a life and stuff):

Wow, first off, it's nice being able to debate a resolution on something other than technicalities for once. And the debate has been good natured all in all, apart from that attack of the bitchiness in the middle. A piece of advice on this note:

If you find someone's opinion stupid and/or offensive either calmly point out the mistakes or ignore them and trust that everyone else will see them for what they are
If someone personally insults you the best way to respond is by calmly arguing against any claims they make. You'll be more likely to win others to your own side that way.

Now Nanny Netiquette has finished her lecture, on to the matter at hand.

First, the

Science

Aborted embryos

It seems from my, admittedly limited, research that aborted embryos can be used. Citing the AAAS report (http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/report.pdf) on the matter (very even-handed by the way, a recommended read):

The second source is cells derived from aborted fetuses. Research with fetal tissue of all types is already ongoing in both the private and public sectors. Current federal regulations that clearly separate the woman’s decision to have an abortion from her decision to donate tissue from the aborted fetus appear adequate to cover the situation of fetal stem cells as well, because the issues are the same.

However, it is true that given the late development of the embryo that the cells used would be embryonic germ cells, rather than embryonic stem cells:

Embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst (a very early embryo). Embryonic germ cells are collected from fetal tissue at a somewhat later stage of development (from a region called the gonadal ridge), and the cell types that they can develop into may be slightly limited.(AAAS report)

It's not clear how limited embryonic germ cells are, possibly due to ethical issues, the matter has not been sufficiently researched as of yet.

Note, this is information from one, admittedly reputable source. As such it is somewhat open to doubt. If anyone has any supporting or contrary information it would be welcomed

Adult stem cells

Opinion seems divided on how useful these are. Due to this I've tried to cull information from sources that are as neutral as possible. The AAAS report states that:

Adult stem cells, obtained from mature tissues, differentiate into a narrower range of cell types. As a result, many cells of medical interest cannot currently be obtained from adult-derived stem cells. It is also less feasible to develop large-scale cultures from adult stem cells. However, it is important to note that, at this time, it is only adult human stem cells that are well-enough understood that they can be reliably differentiated into specific tissue types, and that have proceeded to clinical trials.

So adult stem cells are better understood, but possibly less versatile. As for other reports, the National Institutes of Health (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/) suggests that adult stem cells are less useful than embryonic cells:

Stem cells in adult tissues do not appear to have the same capacity to differentiate as do embryonic stem cells or embryonic germ cells. Embryonic stem and germ cells are clearly pluripotent; they can differentiate into any tissues derived from all three germ layers of the embryo (ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm). But are adult stem cells also pluripotent? When they reside in their normal tissue compartments—the brain, the bone marrow, the epithelial lining of the gut, etc.—they produce the cells that are specific to that kind of tissue and they have been found in tissues derived from all three embryonic layers. But can adult stem cells be taken out of their normal environment and be manipulated or otherwise induced to have the same differentiation potential as embryonic stem and germ cells? To date, there are no definitive answers to these questions, and the answers that do exist are sometimes conflicting.

However, this is contradicted by a later report from the Scottish Council on Human Bio-ethics (http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells.htm):

The recommendations made in the Reports of the Donaldson Committee in the U.K. and the NIH in the United States respectively, on the utility of using human embryos as a source of stem cells, and further on the limitations of adult stem cells, are now completely out-dated. Based on the most recent and ground-breaking medical research using stem cells, it has become clear that "adult" stem cells have outstanding advantages in terms of immediate clinical application, safety and feasibility over all other sources of stem cells and that the objections to the use of "adult" stem cells have now been overcome.

I'm inclined to go with the Scottish Council's verdict on this one since it is more recent, however, I accept I simply do not have sufficient knowledge to adequately determine the case so I do not feel I can make a definite judgement. Until I feel wholly re-assured on this note, then, I would not be comfortable rejecting the proposal on such a basis. Again, other sources would be appreciated.

Stem cells have not been shown to be useful.
Adult stem cells certainly have, the Scottish Council on Bio-Ethics cited the following case:

In what is regarded as the first documented case of successful gene-therapy "surgery", scientists at the Necker Hospital for Sick Children in Paris succeeded in treating two infants diagnosed with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Disease (SCID), a life-threatening degenerative disease caused by defects on the male (X) chromosome. The team extracted "adult" stem cells from the children's bone marrow, manipulated the cells in the laboratory to replace the damaged gene with a functioning gene, then re-injected the cells back into the bone marrow. The repaired cells then "replenished" the immune system ("re-stocked" it with healthy cells) and the children have since gone on to make a full recovery.

As for embryonic stem cells, it's true that as of yet no therapies have been successful. However, it must be stated that the research is still at an early stage.

Even if embryonic stem-cell research has not yet proved greatly beneficial that is no reason not to fund it. The very nature of practical scientific research is to take initially useless technologies and make them useful. It only becomes relevant if there are serious ethical issues....

Which brings us nicely to

Ethics

The ethical questions mostly rest on the thorny question of how to classify an embryo, and whether this classifcation gives it a moral status. I'll start with two fairly uncontroversial statements:

An embryo is not a person

The usual definition of a person usually rests on self-awareness or other cognitive abilities, an embryo has no brain and so is clearly not cognitive. If, therefore, you define whether something is or is not due moral treatment on the grounds of whether it is or is not a person then embryonic stem cell research poses no ethical problems (unless you include "potential persons" but that's a pretty damn tricky area that could well include spermatozoa).

Note you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of this. Animals are not creatures of moral worth (unless it can be shown they fit the definition of people). Nor are brain-dead or otherwise seriously mentally deficient human beings. If you are prepared to accept these consequences then you can support this resolution in good faith.

An embryo is a separate life

The scientific consensus seems to support this assertion. To take one example, from the American Bioethics Advisory Comission (http://www.all.org/abac/ab020128.htm):

Life as a process began when the first molecular replication became sustained into the unbroken chain which we have today. It is called the continuum. Somewhere along that chain the process for humans became refined into sexual reproduction and the fusion of male and female sex cells fused to renew that continuum by forming a new individual human life.

So, yes, the embryo is a separate life. Therefore if you define whether something is or is not due moral treatment on the grounds of whether it is or is not alive then embryonic stem cell research is immoral.

There are, however, big problems with this line of reasoning. All animals, plants, bacteria, virii and maybe even computer virii are creatures of moral worth and so it would be immoral to take penicillin (doubly immoral, given the death of the penicillin mould) or run Norton Anti-Virus. I don't think anyone, apart from perhaps an ultra-orthodox buddhist, would consider this stance, then.

Is an embryo human?

And here we come to the crux. And I am not even going to attempt to offer an authoritative answer. What I ask is that anyone who claims that an embryo is, or is not, a human life make sure they lay out in precise detail how they define a human. And be prepared to deal with the consequences of your definition.

Other ethical considerations

The above arguments are, of course, not the be all and end all. There's the question of the ethics of artificially creating human life. To those who take this stand-point I say, fine, as long as you can argue convincingly why artifically, as opposed to naturally through sexual intercourse, creating life is immoral and are prepared to accept the immorality of in-vitro fertilisation.

Next there's the argument on the basis of the woman/couple's right to choose, either over whether to use aborted fetuses or fetuses created in-vitro. To those who argue this I say first show that an embryo is not a creature of moral worth. Choice over whether a creature of moral worth lives or dies is not permissible even if said creature resides in your own body.

There's also the utilitarian/consequentialist argument, ie even if an embryo is a creature of moral worth it is acceptable to terminiate its life due to the number of lives that would be saved. This is acceptable only if you follow a utilitarian/consequentialist morality in all cases, that is, you would accept the torture and murder of one individual in order to benefit a greater number.

Finally, there's the religious argument. For those who are thinking of adopting this I say don't. Or rather, state it as a reason why you would vote against but don't offer it as an argument to persuade others. You won't succeed. To Christians, especially, it is worth noting that the Bible is not at all clear on the matter. If you use your religion as a primary source of justification then evertything will quickly and tiresomely descend into a bash the Christian (or other denomination) contest. There's plenty of other arguments you can use to support your position.



OK, now my fingers hurt. On a final note I thought I'd set out my position. It is the position of the Constitutional Monarchy of Stripe-Lovers that only persons are creatures of moral worth and so we will be voting in favour of this measure, conditional on others not showing embryonic stem cell research to be a worthless line of scientific study. And yes, we have thought through the ramifications of this ethical satandpoint and follow it consistently, thus abortions are legal, euthenasia of brain dead individuals is also legal and we do not legislate on the basis of animal rights.

However, we respect the fact that in this highly complex issues it is perfectly valid to hold contrary ethical standpoints. We would ask, however, that those arguing from any ethical standpoint on this issue ensure that they can consistently maintain such a view. We will respect any consistent ethical standpoint, even if it is entirely contrary to our own, whilst acting to show inconsistencies within less-well reasoned points of view.

I'm going to have a lie down now. [edit: after writing the below post and editing this one]

I just forget: if this proposal pass, UN will fall in complete descredit for support absurd proposals, for don't know own resolutions and for not know what is natioanl and what is international.

People in Larica think it's tima to create a conseul in Un to read all proposals before we have to fote it.

National Sovereignity arguments are pretty shaky, IMHO, and have been overturned in many, many previous resolutions.

And there is a council, of sorts. The mods read through all proposals before they get through to see if they violate UN rules. Read the sitcky threads (the ones at the top of the forum) to see the reasons for not accepting a proposal. Note national sovereignity is not one of them. It was, quite rightly in my opinion, decided to leave it up to the members of the UN to decide for themselves where national sovereignity started and finished.

I am all for the IDEA of stem cell research... but in practice this research needs tight regulation. It should be governement-funded and regulated (not privately) and under no circumstances could stem cells or the organisms from which they are extracted be considered legal property that can be owned by any party. The purchasing and sale of stem cells for treatment must be handled by an appropriate goverment agency and never by a private organisation. In this way, such research could never be exploited and the building blocks of life never be anyone's property.

Only if the proposal is amended to include such restrictions could i vote for it.

Thanks Vastiva, you're right! Larica is just leaving this mess!

I am all for the IDEA of stem cell research... but in practice this research needs tight regulation. It should be governement-funded and regulated (not privately) and under no circumstances could stem cells or the organisms from which they are extracted be considered legal property that can be owned by any party. The purchasing and sale of stem cells for treatment must be handled by an appropriate goverment agency and never by a private organisation. In this way, such research could never be exploited and the building blocks of life never be anyone's property.

Only if the proposal is amended to include such restrictions could i vote for it.

We have never found anything the government can do right that private enterprise could not do better. Profit incentive is fantastic. As such, we will be pushing for this resolution, as it is incredibly weak and badly worded, but gives an opening which could be exploited by later resolutions.

I think this stem cell research bill should be voted against by all...

i'm not against stem cell research, and would gladly support a new stem cell research proposal to the UN... howevewr, it should be on a voluntary basis... the current proposal makes it sound like it's mandatory to fund it out of your tax dollars... it should only be an option... the legality of the research is fine... but I should be able to decide where my tax dollars go...

all for research!