NationStates Jolt Archive

Im back and ready to debate after a good nights rest. First off, I want to warn you that I havent read all the pages since I left last night, so bare with me. Secondly, I have seen threats to repeal my resolution, if it is so passed, or even attempt to have it revised. Let me state that, I will counter every punch and block every kick. I will match every blow you pose against my resolution. I will campaign against you, I will debate you, I will repeal your repeal. I will never give in and I will never give up. Thank you. By the way for those of you who are new to this debate, I am Nykibo, the guy who wrote the resolution. As I can see now, I have stirred up much contreversy and pushed the envelope here, which is what I'm all about. I have a great passion in Stem Cell Research as I see a hope for the future in it.

Feklar, if you read closely, my resolution allows your citizens the option to fund it. If your scientists wish to do so, you must provide the funding. It is basically optional.

If something is alive or dead, please tell me what these items are:

A Virus that lays dormant like a grain of sand until it finds a host.

A nano machine that is created by man, but acts exactly like a virus: it lies dormant until it finds a host and then replicates itself.

A person whose brain has been removed to the brainstem, allowing them to breath and their heart to beat, but all cognitive thought to never occur again.

An unfertilized chicken egg.

A fertilized chicken egg that hasn't hatched.

A computer program that can emulate human thought and emotion and shows signs of self preservation and replication.

Could I hear your reasons for placing each in a catagory of alive and dead? What is your definition of life and what is your definition of not-alive (or dead)?

Now, let me tell you why I think the debate is actually barking up the wrong tree... the question isn't whether it is life to the opposition, the question is whether it is human. If they REALLY cared about life that would include trees, cows, flowers, and on and on. If they really believed ALL life was precious, they wouldn't be able to eat any meat or vegetables, hunt, weed their gardens, etc.

The question of whether an embryo is alive actually doesn't matter to the opposition. They really care that it is Human. The fact that it is alive or dead is secondary.

I can settle this once and for all, the definition of a living organism is clearly defined by science in 7 simple rules of which I cannot think of right now, but I will get back to you. :p

This one sorta is nebulous again, does it mandate spending? Force spending? What does this resolution do exactly? I can't figure it out. It sorta contradicts earlier ones, and doesn't really specify anything.

If it goes as is, it looks fine, I mean it says stem cells, but not those from particular, nor legalizes it, just asks for it. It asks, but does not mandate member states from doing it. This is a feel good resolution, even if it passes it does not affect any member who wishes to ignore it.

Actually, the copy on the first page of this thread is the first version, to see the actual resolution, go to the UN Page, it's right on the front.

Please vote against this resolution. If it were a resolution simply to allow stem cell research to happen, then i'd be all for it. However, I don't think the UN should force a nation to FUND stem cell research. I for one would rather see private industry fund such an endevour.

Please, even if you are in favor of stem cell research, vote against this resolution and make a new one that simply says stem cell research will be legal in all UN member nations.

If this passes, I'll leave the UN.

Almost-Anarchists

Please vote against this resolution. If it were a resolution simply to allow stem cell research to happen, then i'd be all for it. However, I don't think the UN should force a nation to FUND stem cell research. I for one would rather see private industry fund such an endevour.

Please, even if you are in favor of stem cell research, vote against this resolution and make a new one that simply says stem cell research will be legal in all UN member nations.

If this passes, I'll leave the UN.

Almost-Anarchists

Bye. Feel free to slam the door on your way out.

What is it with these nations we've never heard of before threatening to leave and honestly thinking we'd care?

I'm a member, I have a right to speak. You can blow it out your ass for all I care, as I'm sure you feel I can.

I'm a member, I have a right to speak. You can blow it out your ass for all I care, as I'm sure you feel I can.

If you wish to give your opinion, that is fine. Threatening to leave, however, only gets invites and recommendations for you to do so. Please, feel free to slam the door.

It wasn't a threat, it was a promise. I am simplying conveying how opposed I am to the UN forcing a country to fund something. That should be up to the country, not the UN. And the fact that this is the first time I've posted here only indicates that the UN has finally come up with an issue that was offensive enough to me for me to speak up.

A-A

Again, it doesnt require you to fund it just states that if your scientists want to research it then you MUST. Its basically optional.

Again, it doesnt require you to fund it just states that if your scientists want to research it then you MUST. Its basically optional.

Rereading that, I don't see how it is optional at all. Heh.

correct you are, thanks for pointing out my ingnorace and misreading.

We dont need a resolution to make it legal, it already is legal thanks to Resolution #2, Scientific Freedom. This resolution is to boost awareness and make advancements in medicine and science, especially genetics.

No problem, I get this alot :rolleyes: heh heh :)

Nykibo,

Again, it doesnt require you to fund it just states that if your scientists want to research it then you MUST. Its basically optional.

What you had just said made it sound not optional. "If your scientists want to research it you MUST."

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

OOC: When you get down to it, it's more of an RP thing.

It wasn't a threat, it was a promise. I am simplying conveying how opposed I am to the UN forcing a country to fund something. That should be up to the country, not the UN. And the fact that this is the first time I've posted here only indicates that the UN has finally come up with an issue that was offensive enough to me for me to speak up.

A-A

You need to read the passed proposals. There are ones long before this that require you to fund something.

Thank you, DemonLordEnigma. And Aliste, just give it up and leave me be. I'm sure that if you had a resolution or a proposal that I didn't like, I would politely voice my opinion, maybe do a little campaigning against you, and thats it. I wouldnt hound you to death! But, no, you obviously dont give breaks. Well I do, like so, :sniper:

Wow, 18 pages. Sorry, I can barely read 2 pages of this before I get bored. So how about I just voice my opinion and then take it from there.

Anyway, I'm for any cloning and stem cell research for anything.

Thank you Myotis. We need all the support we can get. If you want you can vote for my proposal on the front of the UN page. Thanks Again. :)

Thank you Myotis. We need all the support we can get. If you want you can vote for my proposal on the front of the UN page. Thanks Again. :)


Done and done :)

I havent read all the pages but my position is is that all knowledge is worth having that said knowlege like stem cell research should be used carefully, but I am for the proposal.

Human cloning? Experimenting on human embryos?! :eek:

Super cool! Number 1 ! :D

Heh. Just for the record, that was all sarcasm...

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Every vote counts, get out there and put your vote in the "For" column! We need to get this resolution passed and put the UN in the right direction!

Well actually, I've just submitted a repeal on "Scientific Freedom".

I figure, if we get that repealed - your resolution becomes void. Heh.

Besides, the "Scientific Freedom" resolution scares the hell out of me.

If you pass that repeal, I will repeal you repeal, so heh to that!

Well actually, I've just submitted a repeal on "Scientific Freedom".

I figure, if we get that repealed - your resolution becomes void. Heh.

Besides, the "Scientific Freedom" resolution scares the hell out of me.



Scientific freedom is what the entire world is based upon. Do you think we'd have automobiles today if millions of years ago the cave-dweller wasn't allowed to invent the wheel? Do you know how many people thought famous inventors throughout history were insane, but if they were not allowed to invent we wouldn't have things like the phone, the telivision, electricity? How about the fact that the entire eastern hemisphere would be totally unknown if the ship had never been invented because we weren't supposed to stay atop water and Columbus never found it?

Scientists have every right to freedom in their occupation just as much as anyone else. Just because there are controversial things they can do doesn't mean we should slander them. I'm sure many people are angry that in a high speed chase, police ean are allowed to break road laws to catch the criminal, but if we didn't allow them to do that, well, you can draw the obvious conclusion, can't you?

The repeal wont pass - heh. But it gives me something to do.

Something to work towards. :(

Your first proposal and it's going to pass by like 5,000 freaking votes. (sigh).

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Second actually, but you know, no matter how much Im despising you at the moment :headbang:, your'e extremely determined. We'd make a damn good team if we didnt oppose each other in our views ;)

Debating is definately open, step right up.

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.
Yeah, I heard that too. Also that adult human fat cells can be used, without hurting the human in any way. So I think that while stem cell research would be really helpful, there are less harmful ways of doing it. So you should re-work the proposal I think.

Yeah, I heard that too. Also that adult human fat cells can be used, without hurting the human in any way. So I think that while stem cell research would be really helpful, there are less harmful ways of doing it. So you should re-work the proposal I think.

Maybe they could get donations from people who do liposuctions, then?

i don't know... i still think it should be up to the government to fund it, not the scientists... I'm in the process of lowering taxes, and i don't want to have to fund millions on a scientists whim... i think it should be re-worded... cause how much money are we talking about here... money for a new high-tech stem cell research facility... or money to buy a new stapler

A) This is to study Embryonic Stem Cell Research, not Adult Stem Cell Research. With extensive research, we may find Embryonic Stem Cells more beneficial and more efficient than Adult Stem Cells, being able to cure more diseases, and faster.

B) The funding would depend on exactly how extensive scientists want to get. If you feel that the funding is being utterly misused however, you have the option to withdraw it without penalty.

A) This is to study Embryonic Stem Cell Research, not Adult Stem Cell Research. With extensive research, we may find Embryonic Stem Cells more beneficial and more efficient than Adult Stem Cells, being able to cure more diseases, and faster.

B) The funding would depend on exactly how extensive scientists want to get. If you feel that the funding is being utterly misused however, you have the option to withdraw it without penalty.


Well, that throws liposuction out the window. Unless there are really fat embryos.

In any case, I'm still for it.

Well, that throws liposuction out the window. Unless there are really fat embryos.

In any case, I'm still for it.

lol

I think we should research and find the more efficient cells.
All for it :) :D

No point, really.

We've already seen that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to be just as efficient as embryonic stem cells.

Researching embryonic stem cells is - well - frivilous.

All against it :) :D

No point, really.

We've already seen that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to be just as efficient as embryonic stem cells.

Researching embryonic stem cells is - well - frivilous.

All against it :) :D

You have a selective reading pattern that is undermining your ability to convincingly debate.


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:


Quote:
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 suggests that adult stem cells are less useful than embryonic cells:


Quote:
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.

The sort of "pre-editing" and "selective knowledge" you are displaying indicates to Vastiva that you are incapable of ever seeing anything that contradicts your opinion. We therefore will not support this or anything else you propose on the grounds your arguements cannot be trusted.

Well actually, I've just submitted a repeal on "Scientific Freedom".

I figure, if we get that repealed - your resolution becomes void. Heh.

Besides, the "Scientific Freedom" resolution scares the hell out of me.

Well, no, it doesn't. The range of research would just go down. :rolleyes:

The repeal wont pass - heh. But it gives me something to do.

Something to work towards. :(

Your first proposal and it's going to pass by like 5,000 freaking votes. (sigh).

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Amazing, isn't it? Democracy in action.

i don't know... i still think it should be up to the government to fund it, not the scientists... I'm in the process of lowering taxes, and i don't want to have to fund millions on a scientists whim... i think it should be re-worded... cause how much money are we talking about here... money for a new high-tech stem cell research facility... or money to buy a new stapler

It doesn't say. It doesn't even say "reasonable and necessary" or something like that. So if you don't like it, give them a dollar and be done with it.

A) This is to study Embryonic Stem Cell Research, not Adult Stem Cell Research. With extensive research, we may find Embryonic Stem Cells more beneficial and more efficient than Adult Stem Cells, being able to cure more diseases, and faster.

B) The funding would depend on exactly how extensive scientists want to get. If you feel that the funding is being utterly misused however, you have the option to withdraw it without penalty.

Well, no, you still have to fund it. But you can cut funds dramatically.

Vastiva, you've just posted 5 times in a row.

I believe that is called spamming?

Hey look - an edit button. :rolleyes:

Heh, now I know why she has so many posts! :p

:rolleyes:

Votes For: 7,012

Votes Against: 1,701

Seven to one? This is scary.

You have a selective reading pattern that is undermining your ability to convincingly debate.

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:
<snip>

So adult stem cells are better understood, but possibly less versatile. As for other reports, the National Institutes of Health suggests that adult stem cells are less useful than embryonic cells:
<snippy snip snip>

The sort of "pre-editing" and "selective knowledge" you are displaying indicates to Vastiva that you are incapable of ever seeing anything that contradicts your opinion. We therefore will not support this or anything else you propose on the grounds your arguements cannot be trusted.

Despite currently supporting this proposal I feel duty bound to point out that the Scottish Council on Bio-Ethics' report (quoted later in my post) argued that adult stem cells were perfectly viable. The jury's still out, as far as I'm concerned, since I don't feel I am sufficiently proficient in biology to make a clear cut judgement between the conflicting viewpoints. I am certainly interested in seeing what it is Aliste has come across to make him so certain of his position.

Danke, that was my point - we don't know which is better. No statement can be definitively made about which is better in the absense of proof.

We can make all the "but it's icky" statements we want, but until there is conclusive proof one way or the other...

Aliste
Not sure if it's been mentioned (this thread grew exponentially since the first time I commented in it)... anyway,
you said on page 6 or 8 that there is no such thing as "potential human life" but I just wanted to argue this point.
Even if you call the blastocyst a human life, there is something that created it. The process during which the sperm and egg are about to combine, although not human life yet (as they have not combined) is potential human life. It is unknown if it will be successful and create that human life, but it does have the potential to; thus; potential human life.
However, potential human life must be not human life yet.

Anyway; back to regular discussion of the topic.

Heh.

If you protect "potential human life", are periods murder? What about masteurbation? Wet dreams? What about miscarriages? Murder? After all, the "potential human life" was lost. Must be the woman's fault - lets put her in jail for that!

(The above was utter utter sarcarm)

Stem cells will pass at this point, by a huge margin. So where's all this amazing resistance we've been hearing about?

Votes For: 7,556

Votes Against: 1,758

Stem Cell research in and of itself is widely accepted, that is Adult Stem Cell research which has proven itself by having positive results. Embryonic Stem Cell research (which is essentially what you are proposing) is not as widely accepted and has not proven itself thus far.

The United States of Slave Trading hereby votes Nay to the proposal.

Danke, that was my point - we don't know which is better. No statement can be definitively made about which is better in the absense of proof.

We can make all the "but it's icky" statements we want, but until there is conclusive proof one way or the other...

Agreed, I was just jumping in to point out to anyone who hadn't read earlier that it's not clear which argument is valid, just in case they drew the wrong conclusion.

And to join in the call for Aliste to support his statements.

The following is the proposal up to debate, with my rebuttal in parentheses. I beg you to reconsider your yes votes. If passed this proposal could become widely abused.


The use of Stem Cells is an amazing new breakthrough in the fields of science and medicine.
(How the stem cells are to be used is not mentioned. The fact that )

Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases, including Cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.

(This is a fallacy, there is no way, currently known, to eradicate these diseases using stem cells)

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.
(Also untrue, and unproven, the funding continues to grow in some countries)

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 proposal specifically mentions embryos are to harvested to get the stem cells. This is not merely experimentation, but the destruction of an embryo, the termination of a pregnancy, and the denial of a child’s right to be born. How would you feel if before you were born your mother, or even worse your government, decide that you would be “harvested” for scientific research that is still unproven?)

This is the best chance we have at beating these diseases.

(There is no proof to support this claim.)

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.

(Also, this proposal is rather unspecific, and is not written as legislation, but more as a persuasive paragraph. This proposal is too vague and is open to abuse. For example, a nation must provide funding. How much? All that the scientists require? Most nations don’t have that kind of cash. Also, the nations could fund a miniscule amount such as, a single US dollar equivalent. What good would that do?)

The following is the proposal up to debate, with my rebuttal in parentheses. I beg you to reconsider your yes votes. If passed this proposal could become widely abused.


The use of Stem Cells is an amazing new breakthrough in the fields of science and medicine.
(How the stem cells are to be used is not mentioned. The fact that )

Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases, including Cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.

(This is a fallacy, there is no way, currently known, to eradicate these diseases using stem cells)

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.
(Also untrue, and unproven, the funding continues to grow in some countries)

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 proposal specifically mentions embryos are to harvested to get the stem cells. This is not merely experimentation, but the destruction of an embryo, the termination of a pregnancy, and the denial of a child’s right to be born. How would you feel if before you were born your mother, or even worse your government, decide that you would be “harvested” for scientific research that is still unproven?)

This is the best chance we have at beating these diseases.

(There is no proof to support this claim.)

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.

(Also, this proposal is rather unspecific, and is not written as legislation, but more as a persuasive paragraph. This proposal is too vague and is open to abuse. For example, a nation must provide funding. How much? All that the scientists require? Most nations don’t have that kind of cash. Also, the nations could fund a miniscule amount such as, a single US dollar equivalent. What good would that do?)

It will do very little to no good, as its wording is terrible, it makes no guarantees or funding assurances, it does not limit or expand, it does not make research more available to the world at large - in short, it doesn't do much at all but put stem cell research higher up on the "gimme money" list if your government funds scientific research.

As such, I'm rather floored it got this much resistance - of the type of resistance it did. But then again, people don't read much. I suppose if I put up a proposal of "Ban Beastiality" and had the text call for a general acceptance of medical marajuana, people would support the hell out of it.

Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases, including Cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.

(This is a fallacy, there is no way, currently known, to eradicate these diseases using stem cells)


If you will note - the proposal doesn't say they CAN be used, but they COULD be used. Meaning that there is more research required to find out how they can be used. Hence the need for the proposal.


(This proposal specifically mentions embryos are to harvested to get the stem cells. This is not merely experimentation, but the destruction of an embryo, the termination of a pregnancy, and the denial of a child’s right to be born. How would you feel if before you were born your mother, or even worse your government, decide that you would be “harvested” for scientific research that is still unproven?)


Well - you wouldn't know because you weren't born. Using this as a reason to vote no is not the best arguement, since it can be countered with "well - if they don't use this cell it could grow up to be another Dark Priest, so it's best they do it"


This is the best chance we have at beating these diseases.
(There is no proof to support this claim.)


There is no proof to rebut it either.


(Also, this proposal is rather unspecific, and is not written as legislation, but more as a persuasive paragraph. This proposal is too vague and is open to abuse. For example, a nation must provide funding. How much? All that the scientists require? Most nations don’t have that kind of cash. Also, the nations could fund a miniscule amount such as, a single US dollar equivalent. What good would that do?)

It's better than nothing. And the more nations working on it the more likely a solution will be found in less time. Which is a good thing.

If you will note - the proposal doesn't say they CAN be used, but they COULD be used. Meaning that there is more research required to find out how they can be used. Hence the need for the proposal.

Well then, he has no proof to indeed say that they could cure these things. There is no proof! Honestly, If you are to go on that reasoning then we could also say that making human sacrifices to Voodoo gods could save people from those diseases. This is an assumption, and assumptions such as that are highly dangerous in International politics

Well - you wouldn't know because you weren't born. Using this as a reason to vote no is not the best arguement, since it can be countered with "well - if they don't use this cell it could grow up to be another Dark Priest, so it's best they do it".

Exactly, you wouldn't know. You would not know the joy of music, or the simple pleasures of debates such as this. You would know nothing; because you would be denied the right to exist. I don't want to live in a world where people are denied the right to live at the small possibility that the millions of lives denied may someday save another's life. We have no right to deny life to anybody. Your Dark Priest argument (or is it arguement? LOL) is nothing like my argument. First, what do you mean Dark Priest? You are putting words in my mouth.


There is no proof to rebut it either.

Yes there is, the lack of proof for the proposal, is infact its reason for rebuttal. Legislation without reason is very dangerous.

It's better than nothing. And the more nations working on it the more likely a solution will be found in less time. Which is a good thing.

Is it better than nothing? I'm going to vote No, to err on the side of caution. You are free to research Stem Cells all you want. But in no way, should my nation be forced to provide funding, especially by a piece of legislation so obviously flawed.

Well then, he has no proof to indeed say that they could cure these things. There is no proof! Honestly, If you are to go on that reasoning then we could also say that making human sacrifices to Voodoo gods could save people from those diseases. This is an assumption, and assumptions such as that are highly dangerous in International politics


Back in the day there was no evidence that penicillin cured anything. Same with x-rays. As I have said before there has been a time in the history of everything that works when it didn't. People invested in the past, because they believed it would do some good. So why should we not invest in this for the future, because we believe it will do some good?



Exactly, you wouldn't know. You would not know the joy of music, or the simple pleasures of debates such as this. You would know nothing; because you would be denied the right to exist. I don't want to live in a world where people are denied the right to live at the small possibility that the millions of lives denied may someday save another's life. We have no right to deny life to anybody. Your Dark Priest argument (or is it arguement? LOL) is nothing like my argument. First, what do you mean Dark Priest? You are putting words in my mouth.


Sorry - I keep forgetting no one lives in TilEnca. The Dark Priest was a man (who grew from an embryo) who slaughtered thousands of thousands of people because he thought it was a good idea.

My point was - this isn't a human life. It has the potential to be, but it isn't. And if you say that it won't know the joy of music, of the pleasure of debate, I say that it won't know the joy of killing, the pleasure of causing someone to scream just because it can. The future of the embryo is not at issue, because it can go either way. And while stopping it from having a good life could be a bad thing, stopping it from causing the end of the world could be a good thing.

And - btw - you live in that world already. Someone who is put to death for a crime they have comitted is done so so that he will not kill again. Someone is dying to save the lives of people in the future. (I know - this person committed a crime, the embryo didn't. But did I mention the embryo is not a person?)


Is it better than nothing? I'm going to vote No, to err on the side of caution. You are free to research Stem Cells all you want. But in no way, should my nation be forced to provide funding, especially by a piece of legislation so obviously flawed.

I am going to vote yes (and did vote yes) an err on the side of the future.

Friends,

I come urging those of you who are members of the United Nations to vote AGAINST the current proposition, that of funding embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research would help cure many diseases, but at what cost? Killing more human lives. Aren't we all in agreement that one life is just as valuable as any other?

It is because of this I offer this solution:

Instead of backing Embryonic Stem Cell research, our nations should put our support and funding behind Adult Stem Cell research. Adult Stem Cell research is where people can take some of their own healthy cells and use them to grow whatever tissue they need. There is no risk of rejection, and no MURDER involved. Thank you for your time, and remember to vote AGAINST the current proposition.

- President Ellis of Ellistonia

First off, what did you people have for breakfast? Carnation Instant Heckler? I swear, I had one stauch arch-enemy, and then out of no where they multiply to 30. With that aside, I realize that many of you are commenting about how I have no proof about what could be done with Stem Cells. And your absolutely right, I don't. But, scientists have projected from what they know combined with potential, that because of the nature of Embryonic Stem Cells, these diseases could be eradicated. Now, the only way to know what exactly the limits of Embryonic Stem Cells are, is to fund extensive Stem Cell Research. Moving on to questions about how much to fund. How much to fund is found directly in the word, funding. The definition of funding is: Sufficient financial resources provided to make some project possible. The key words are, to make some project possible. You must provide enough money to make project possible. How much money exactly is that depends on two things. 1) How extensively your scientists want to research Embryonic Stem Cells. 2) How much your currency is worth. If your scientists want to do a few studies, then it shouldn't cost too much. If your scientists want to lock themselves in a lab for months on end, then it will be a tad more expensive. Let me remind you that its common sense that every government has the right to adjust funds. If you feel that the scientists of your Nation have gone too far and are either A) Misusing the money to buy expensive SUVs, Rolex Watches, etc. Or simply to line their wallets. or B) Are running your country into defecit that compares to that of the United States. Of course if either of those two things are happening then you may cut Stem Cell Research Funds. Its just common sense. The second thing I'd like to cover is the how much your currency is worth. If one unit of currency in your Nation is worth 100 gold bars perhaps, then it shouldnt take you that many units, but it will still get covered. If your one unit of your nations currency is worth 1/100 th of a gold bar, than it will take substantially more money to pay the scientists. It all depends on your RP preference. You are completely right in one aspect however. People dont read. The guidlines were all in the text, you just have to look hard. I believe I have uncovered the Enigma of my resolution and that now very little is left to the imagination.

Aren't we all in agreement that one life is just as valuable as any other?

Yes. But the definition of "life" is where we are in disagreement :}

May I remind you that embryos made for this purpose were not made to be born. A man may donate his sperm, and a woman her eggs. Then the scientists at the lab create a fertilized egg and harvest its Stem Cells. This is a great option for the elderly who are to aged to have children, but would like to make a contribution to science and medicine. The sperm and eggs in this case would have gone to waste rather than to the good of mankind.

Beware the guise of this resolution!!! It can easily mask the introduction of clone research to our world as well. In which case I am all for it. More "drone-bodies" for my industry. It makes my work-force easier to replace and control....

Beware the guise of this resolution!!! It can easily mask the introduction of clone research to our world as well. In which case I am all for it. More "drone-bodies" for my industry. It makes my work-force easier to replace and control....

No offence, but I am not sure why this would introduce cloning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If insurmountable evidence was shown undoubtably confirming this research as beneficial let someone present it!!!!!!!!

We are against any resolution that forces sovereign nations to spent money for scientific projects they reject.
Especially since the use of embryonic stem cells is ethically very problematic.
Embryonic stem cells are the result of abortions. Since not all nations allow abortions we see it as an unacceptable invasion of national sovereignity to force nations to support the research on an scientific projects which include cells which were gained from aborted embryos.

The issue should therefore remain a question for any sovereign nation to decide and not for the UN.

No offence, but I am not sure why this would introduce cloning.

Maybe more research is order for you before u take such a stance :)

No offence, but I am not sure why this would introduce cloning.

Also the word best suitable is COULD not would

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If insurmountable evidence was shown undoubtably confirming this research as beneficial let someone present it!!!!!!!!

Before they showed the world was round, there was no insurmountable evidence of that fact. But cleary it was the case, as it was proven to be so.

So why is this any different?

Yet again, this resolution does not force money to be spent. This is only if your scientists wish to research it. This makes it optional. OOC: Because basically it is just an RP thing. Back IC: Please read these pst carefully as I have explained this for the millionth time.

Heh.

If you protect "potential human life", are periods murder? What about masteurbation? Wet dreams? What about miscarriages? Murder? After all, the "potential human life" was lost. Must be the woman's fault - lets put her in jail for that!

(The above was utter utter sarcarm)


I know it was sarcastic, but just in case there was anyone else who doesn't realize this;
Those things are just making the potential considerably less ;) .

Before they showed the world was round, there was no insurmountable evidence of that fact. But cleary it was the case, as it was proven to be so.

So why is this any different?

This not 1492 my young apprentice. Very bad analogy. Your useless fillibustering degrades your underinformed opinions

And again, embyros that are abortedcannot be used for the Harvesting of Stem Cells. The embryo must be created outside of the womb in order for stem cells to be harvested.

I voted for it! It is a great idea and since my grandmother has Parkinsons I'm for it all the way! Please support my proposals.

Nuclear Power Safety Act
Clean and Healthy Air Act


Patrik Hornak
President
Ocean County, New Jersey
Prime Minister
Jersey Shore

And again, embyros that are abortedcannot be used for the Harvesting of Stem Cells. The embryo must be created outside of the womb in order for stem cells to be harvested.

Here come the clones

I will follow the approval of this resolution with one of my own. Long live technology. Long live the workers....

This not 1492 my young apprentice. Very bad analogy. Your useless fillibustering degrades your underinformed opinions

X-rays were not thought to be useful before someone put them to a use.

Sometimes things are discovered by accident, sometimes you have to work a little. But if we just accepted the idea that something that doesn't work will never work, then we would still be sat inside caves freezing to death while someone else thinks "wow - fire would be nice about now".

And my point about the flat world thing was there was a HUGE weight of evidence to suggest the world was flat, but someone decided to prove it wasn't. And - wow - they were right. So what if, despite the lack of evidence, stem cells are the future of humanity and will save every life on earth? Is that not worth investing a little money in, just to be sure one way or the other?

Ooooh, Shaggy Goat Man is using big words on TilEnca, now youre asking for it pal...

EDIT: And now that I think about what the word Shaggagoat means, thats just disgusting. :eek:

Ooooh, Shaggy Goat Man is using big words on TilEnca, now youre asking for it pal...

EDIT: And now that I think about what the word Shaggagoat means, thats just disgusting. :eek:

The name "Shaggagoat" has a deep meaning for my citizens. As for my stance on this issue, I now humbly accept the resolution as whats best for the preservance of my society and the world. The introduction of a resolution for the advancement of clone research is the most logical next step. Thank u.

Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid.

We are like shop windows in which we are continually arranging, concealing or illuminating the supposed qualities other ascribe to us - in order to deceive ourselves.

How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals--those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously--were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar--an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal--is what first created any basis for logic.

In order that the concept of substance could originate--which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it--it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency--to affirm rather than suspend judgement, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgement rather than be just-- had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.

And again, embyros that are abortedcannot be used for the Harvesting of Stem Cells. The embryo must be created outside of the womb in order for stem cells to be harvested.

Erm, Nykibo, you did read my big-ass post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7567545&postcount=244) on this, and many, many, other subjects didn't you? Because if the proposer didn't even read it I'm going into a corner to cry. And change my posting style to gain more replies.

What do you think about:

All teh gays :gundge: :mp5: :mp5: are suxxxx :confused: :sniper: :headbang: :fluffle:

I must take a stance against stem cell research.
1.) The idea of creating embryos for the purpose of destrying them I stand against.
2.) Research on embryonic stem cells does not show as much promise as has been hyped.
3.) I believe that a provision should be left for capitalistic countries to allow for private enterprise rather than the use of government funding.

For these three reasons I must vote against this proposal and would urge other countries to do the same.

As a entirely capitolist country I must stand against this procedure. I do not believe it is right to tax citizens on this issue, especially since they may not believe in said research. However, I am open to a provision of private funding for such researches.

Sorry Stripe, but people have told me both things and my brain got a litlle woozy, my mistake.

After some Googling,

I am sad to say that I must correct myself. My previous insistance that stem cells cannot be obtained from aborted fetuses - is false.

Indeed, stem cells can be extracted from aborted fetuses.

That is all I have to say about that, before I vomit.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

After some Googling,

I am sad to say that I must correct myself. My previous insistance that stem cells cannot be obtained from aborted fetuses - is false.

Indeed, stem cells can be extracted from aborted fetuses.

That is all I have to say about that, before I vomit.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

HA!

Vastiva has incorporated a new program. We give grants to women to carry fetuses, designed never to be able to grow to full term/maturity, but which produce more stem cells then normal fetuses.

These are then harvested regularly for research purposes.

Everyone is happy. Women make money, scientists have stem cells, nothing was "harmed" in the process.

First off, what did you people have for breakfast? Carnation Instant Heckler? I swear, I had one stauch arch-enemy, and then out of no where they multiply to 30. With that aside, I realize that many of you are commenting about how I have no proof about what could be done with Stem Cells. And your absolutely right, I don't. But, scientists have projected from what they know combined with potential, that because of the nature of Embryonic Stem Cells, these diseases could be eradicated. Now, the only way to know what exactly the limits of Embryonic Stem Cells are, is to fund extensive Stem Cell Research. Moving on to questions about how much to fund. How much to fund is found directly in the word, funding. The definition of funding is: Sufficient financial resources provided to make some project possible. The key words are, to make some project possible. You must provide enough money to make project possible. How much money exactly is that depends on two things. 1) How extensively your scientists want to research Embryonic Stem Cells. 2) How much your currency is worth. If your scientists want to do a few studies, then it shouldn't cost too much. If your scientists want to lock themselves in a lab for months on end, then it will be a tad more expensive. Let me remind you that its common sense that every government has the right to adjust funds. If you feel that the scientists of your Nation have gone too far and are either A) Misusing the money to buy expensive SUVs, Rolex Watches, etc. Or simply to line their wallets. or B) Are running your country into defecit that compares to that of the United States. Of course if either of those two things are happening then you may cut Stem Cell Research Funds. Its just common sense. The second thing I'd like to cover is the how much your currency is worth. If one unit of currency in your Nation is worth 100 gold bars perhaps, then it shouldnt take you that many units, but it will still get covered. If your one unit of your nations currency is worth 1/100 th of a gold bar, than it will take substantially more money to pay the scientists. It all depends on your RP preference. You are completely right in one aspect however. People dont read. The guidlines were all in the text, you just have to look hard. I believe I have uncovered the Enigma of my resolution and that now very little is left to the imagination.

Welcome to the UN!

Your resolution is going to pass by a landslide so congrats on that!

In the next one, might you include "necessary and sufficient funding" or some such term?

Yes, there's wiggle room in this one. Lots of wiggle room. We could fund it with $1 and we've "funded" research. Just so you know, we of the UN are very good at loopholes.

Everyone is happy. Women make money, scientists have stem cells, nothing was "harmed" in the process.

Yay! (skips away into the sunset on the Yellow Brick Road)...

Except one thing, the preborn fetus. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Beware the guise of this resolution!!! It can easily mask the introduction of clone research to our world as well. In which case I am all for it. More "drone-bodies" for my industry. It makes my work-force easier to replace and control....

Well - NO, you can't do that.

See the "End Slavery" and "BioRights Declaration" Resolutions.

Clones are already seen as being full humans as per the UN. So you can't enslave them in any form.

What, are you biased against clones?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If insurmountable evidence was shown undoubtably confirming this research as beneficial let someone present it!!!!!!!!

Right after you show insurmountable evidence - all existing prior to 1300 AD - that nuclear power existed, and fission could be achieved using uranium.

You get the point? Your assertion shows you have no concept of "we don't know if this works, but we have reasonable evidence to assume this might work, hence we are experimenting."

Science. Y'anno, where we experiment to find out?

We are against any resolution that forces sovereign nations to spent money for scientific projects they reject.
Especially since the use of embryonic stem cells is ethically very problematic.
Embryonic stem cells are the result of abortions. Since not all nations allow abortions we see it as an unacceptable invasion of national sovereignity to force nations to support the research on an scientific projects which include cells which were gained from aborted embryos.

The issue should therefore remain a question for any sovereign nation to decide and not for the UN.

And you are in the UN why?

"National Soverignty" is regularly trashed here.

This not 1492 my young apprentice. Very bad analogy. Your useless fillibustering degrades your underinformed opinions

Ah, so you assume everything worth knowing has already been found out?

Yes, that opinion was popular too... in the 1800s.

I must take a stance against stem cell research.
1.) The idea of creating embryos for the purpose of destrying them I stand against.
2.) Research on embryonic stem cells does not show as much promise as has been hyped.
3.) I believe that a provision should be left for capitalistic countries to allow for private enterprise rather than the use of government funding.

For these three reasons I must vote against this proposal and would urge other countries to do the same.

at +7000 votes, its going to pass. Like it or not.

Yay! (skips away into the sunset on the Yellow Brick Road)...

Except one thing, the preborn fetus. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Which is still a non-person with no potential to ever be a person in any way, shape, or form.

Gene manipulation is a wonderful thing.

Which is still a non-person with no potential to ever be a person in any way, shape, or form.

Gene manipulation is a wonderful thing.

Whatever you consider it - it is being 'harmed'.

You specifically mentioned nothing being 'harmed'. And yet, whatever you think it is - is being harmed.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Define "harm".

This should be good.

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.

Neither does a plant, Enn. And a plant is a living organism.

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.

Stop the red herrings and deal with the actual question. It is alive. It is a living organism, as is a parasite or a plant or a gorilla. Just figure out how much of a value you place on it and be done with it. I don't give a damn if you decide to take a different position than what I have, I just want you to think about the question seriously.

Define "harm".

This should be good.

Harm: To bother, disturb, disrupt physically.

Stop the red herrings and deal with the actual question. It is alive. It is a living organism, as is a parasite or a plant or a gorilla. Just figure out how much of a value you place on it and be done with it. I don't give a damn if you decide to take a different position than what I have, I just want you to think about the question seriously.

(claps) Texan, thank you! The problem with these people is that they are not willing to admit they place little or no value on the preborn embryo/fetus/baby/whatever.

Because they are unwilling to come right out and explain they put little or no value on it - instead they twist it and claim it isn't a human life at all! Science of course disagrees with them, but they insist!

Anyways, the point is - insisting it is not a human life is a very (once again) very old fashioned argument. This argument has already been dismissed by science. The new argument (and is still valid), is that it isn't a person. I'm not going to debate whether it is or is not a person.

But that aside, it is high time that all of you pro-abortion or pro-embryonic stem cell research advocates come right out into the open and explain although it is a human life - you put little or no value on it because it is not yet independent of the mother.

At least that argument I would have a little more, no a lot more - respect for.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Harm: To bother, disturb, disrupt physically.

Ok, you want to do away with all harm. Start with shutting down your immune system, because you "harm" billions of bacteria and viruses daily.

Then you can stop eating, because everything you eat had to harm something to come around to your plate.

Ridiculous standards deserve ridiculous responses.



(claps) Texan, thank you! The problem with these people is that they are not willing to admit they place little or no value on the preborn embryo/fetus/baby/whatever.

Emotional arguement, invalid.



Because they are unwilling to come right out and explain they put little or no value on it - instead they twist it and claim it isn't a human life at all! Science of course disagrees with them, but they insist!

Emotional arguement, invalid.



Anyways, the point is - insisting it is not a human life is a very (once again) very old fashioned argument. This argument has already been dismissed by science. The new argument (and is still valid), is that it isn't a person. I'm not going to debate whether it is or is not a person.

Proof that "science dismissed" that arguement would be appreciated.

And its good you won't debate that point - I'll put you down as "accepts it is not a person". Say a word, and you're debating the point. Heh.



But that aside, it is high time that all of you pro-abortion or pro-embryonic stem cell research advocates come right out into the open and explain although it is a human life - you put little or no value on it because it is not yet independent of the mother.

At least that argument I would have a little more, no a lot more - respect for.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

It's about time you argued logically and not emotionally. That which is not an independant person by our laws is classified as a "not human". Period. Which has been said, what, five times so far?

Next.

Ok, you want to do away with all harm. Start with shutting down your immune system, because you "harm" billions of bacteria and viruses daily.

Then you can stop eating, because everything you eat had to harm something to come around to your plate.

Ridiculous standards deserve ridiculous responses.




Emotional arguement, invalid.




Emotional arguement, invalid.




Proof that "science dismissed" that arguement would be appreciated.

And its good you won't debate that point - I'll put you down as "accepts it is not a person". Say a word, and you're debating the point. Heh.




It's about time you argued logically and not emotionally. That which is not an independant person by our laws is classified as a "not human". Period. Which has been said, what, five times so far?

Next.


+20,000 respect points to Vastiva

+20,000 respect points to Vastiva

*levels up* ;)

Stop the red herrings and deal with the actual question. It is alive. It is a living organism, as is a parasite or a plant or a gorilla. Just figure out how much of a value you place on it and be done with it. I don't give a damn if you decide to take a different position than what I have, I just want you to think about the question seriously.

If it is not a human, or that which is legally classified as a human, it does not get protection under the law as a human.

Is that clear enough?

If it is not a human, or that which is legally classified as a human, it does not get protection under the law as a human.

Is that clear enough?

I was discussing an issue of ethics, not legality. If you want to talk legality, that's fine. Just don't expect me to talk about it with you.

Quite frankly, I'm not in the mood for your bullshit or your baiting. So back off, or waste your time bashing your head against the Ignore function that's built into these boards.

Ok, you want to do away with all harm. Start with shutting down your immune system, because you "harm" billions of bacteria and viruses daily.

Then you can stop eating, because everything you eat had to harm something to come around to your plate.

Ridiculous standards deserve ridiculous responses.

Please take the time to review this thread as I had never, ever, said anything even remotely close to wanting to 'do away with all harm'.

This is a gross, sickening twisting of my words. I was simply pointing out that in fact you are harming the fetus no matter what you consider it (a person or not).

You said that nothing would be harmed, I said the preborn fetus was being harmed, you told me to define what 'harm' is, I defined it - and now you have twisted my words and are saying that I want to DO AWAY WITH ALL HARM! lol.

:headbang:

The Armed Republic of Aliste (now laughing hysterically).

I was discussing an issue of ethics, not legality. If you want to talk legality, that's fine. Just don't expect me to talk about it with you.

Quite frankly, I'm not in the mood for your bullshit or your baiting. So back off, or waste your time bashing your head against the Ignore function that's built into these boards.

This is the UN. We do not discuss ethics or morality, we discuss law.

this might just be something that needs to be cleared up for me...
but aren't humans sentient beings? and is a fetus a sentient being?

anyway, i just thought that might be a good question to think about for the whole "is a fetus a human life" thing... and note, this isn't an argument really; it doesn't show my personal opinion, just thought it'd help with the discussion here...

This is the UN. We do not discuss ethics or morality, we discuss law.

This is a public forum. The only ones who decide what I can and cannot discuss are mods and admin.

Please take the time to review this thread as I had never, ever, said anything even remotely close to wanting to 'do away with all harm'.

This is a gross, sickening twisting of my words. I was simply pointing out that in fact you are harming the fetus no matter what you consider it (a person or not).

You said that nothing would be harmed, I said the preborn fetus was being harmed, you told me to define what 'harm' is, I defined it - and now you have twisted my words and are saying that I want to DO AWAY WITH ALL HARM! lol.

:headbang:

The Armed Republic of Aliste (now laughing hysterically).

1) a "preborn" anything is not a "whatever".
2) Only "whatevers" get protection under law.
3) As it is not yet a "whatever", it does not get the status of being a "whatever", including those protections a "whatever" gets.
4) As it does not have the status necessary to protect it under law, it receives no protection under law.

It does not matter if you find it icky, or you don't like it, or you state conclusively that harm is being done. Harm is "being done" to tissue, a parasite, a non-being. As such, legally there is no "wrongness" involved.

Your ethics, moral arguements, or such, do not have a place in legal debate.

This is a public forum. The only ones who decide what I can and cannot discuss are mods and admin.

True. We stand corrected.

However, it remains, the UN cannot decide issues of ethics or morality, as such are the domain of religion, which is protected by UN resolution.

Texan, I'm going to assume you missed my post earlier on page 16 of this thread where I again wrote on this topic. Here it is again.

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.

Is that better? Embryos are alive, but they are not people. I do not view them as human life - potential human life, yes, but so are ova and spermatozoa.

I really don't want to get involved in this debate again as I'm having enough trouble just trying to keep up.

Stem cells can be retrieved in another way. You can read about here:

http://www.cryo-save.com/cryo-cord/en/en/index.html

This way we can avoid the "when does life start" debate.

Aliste, there's your loophole.

Make a proposal recommending that stem cells be harvested in this manner where possible, or by other means, the better to protect the developing fetus and minimize the need for the use of embryo stem-cells.

Encourage the growth of technology, such as force-growth and cloning, which removes and/or minimizes the need for... yadda yadda yadda.

See?

Make a proposal recommending that stem cells be harvested in this manner where possible, or by other means, the better to protect the developing fetus and minimize the need for the use of embryo stem-cells.

Wouldn't that proposal make this resolution currently at a vote void? Thus wouldn't the proposal be illegal?

Scratch that, on second thought I don't think it would be illegal - it would rather encourage stem cells being harvested by other means.

Just want to let everyone know here that I will not be available from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time today and tommorow, but after 4 Ill be open for debate.

Is that better? Embryos are alive, but they are not people. I do not view them as human life - potential human life, yes, but so are ova and spermatozoa.

I really don't want to get involved in this debate again as I'm having enough trouble just trying to keep up.

You consider them life, but not human life.

Enn, let's think of this rationally. The male gamete or 'sperm' carries 23 chromosomes. A woman's 'egg' also has 23 chromosomes.

When these two gametes unite, the result is the characteristic human zygote with 46 chromosomes. This is the very beginning of a human life - this is where the human life cycle begins.

To call it a life but that of which is not human is false as its characteristics are certainly human - the 46 chromosomes and the unique DNA. Granted we share 95% ? of our DNA with chimps - but that 5% makes a difference.

The point is, from a scientific point of view - human life begins at fertilization.

Although you are correct, the 'egg' and 'sperm' are potential life - two pieces to the puzzle - but you are wrong when you say that upon them uniting, it is still only 'potential life'.

Once again from a scientific point of view - life begins at fertilization and this applies to humans. When a human male's sperm unites with a human woman's egg - what you have is a human zygote, a human life.

Now one could argue of course that although it is a human life it is not a person. I am not even inclined to argure that it is a person, I'd have to agree that it is not a person. But I cannot argue it is not a human life because it most certainly is.

Also one could argue that because it cannot live outside of the womb, blah blah blah.

But all of these arguments are after the fact, the fact that it is a human life. Do not kid yourself - it is. Heh.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

You consider them life, but not human life.
To call it a life but that of which is not human is false as its characteristics are certainly human - the 46 chromosomes and the unique DNA. Granted we share 95% ? of our DNA with chimps - but that 5% makes a difference.


What exact % doesn't make a difference? Since we're being scientific about it.

Emotional arguement, invalid.

If there's one discussion where emotional arguments are valid, it's this one. We're talking about a sensitive subject with many moral issues attached to it.

Unfortunately, this takes away the attention from what I consider much worse, and that is yet another display in falling standards in resolution writing. This is an awfull resolution, both in content (it doesn't do anything) and in formatting (who cares about the Resolution Writing Guide!).

We have changed our position to AGAINST instead of abstaining. Not that it will help, but just to make the point that this resolution shouldn't have left the drafting stage by a long way.

However, it remains, the UN cannot decide issues of ethics or morality, as such are the domain of religion, which is protected by UN resolution.

They certainly aren't the domain of religion. Non-religious people are just as able and allowed to discuss ethics or morality.

In fact, I daresay that the UN is mostly about ethics and morality, in the end. Most discussions seems to be about ethical or moral issues.

They certainly aren't the domain of religion. Non-religious people are just as able and allowed to discuss ethics or morality.

In fact, I daresay that the UN is mostly about ethics and morality, in the end. Most discussions seems to be about ethical or moral issues.

I think he actually said "decide" rather than "discuss", which is slightly different.

But everything comes down to morals (which are different than ethics) - do we let people be executed or not, do we let people commit mass murder or not, do we enforce fair trials or not.

Everything, even if it doesn't seem like it, can be viewed as a moral discussion.

Like you said :}

They certainly aren't the domain of religion. Non-religious people are just as able and allowed to discuss ethics or morality.

In fact, I daresay that the UN is mostly about ethics and morality, in the end. Most discussions seems to be about ethical or moral issues.

Groot Gouda, thank you!

I can't stand it when people make rough generalizations, "religious zealots", "religious fundamentalists", etc.

I'm not religious - I've already decided that I'm going to live my life trying to do good and be a good person and that is all.

However I still hold certain morals and ethics, it has nothing to do with religion as far as I am concerned.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

This might just be me making a "rough generalization" or "twisting someones words" but, personal opinion, I think some of you have taken the word "religious" in these arguments as something like Christianity or Hinduism. Is not "religion" simply a belief of one person? To the best of my knowledge it does not have to be a widely accepted thing to be considered "religion", because it is simply a system of beliefs.
In this sense, (if this is correct), every discussion of morals/ethics is a religious discussion. As soon as someone brings personal beliefs into it, it is a religious discussion, no matter what those beliefs are.

This might just be me making a "rough generalization" or "twisting someones words" but, personal opinion, I think some of you have taken the word "religious" in these arguments as something like Christianity or Hinduism. Is not "religion" simply a belief of one person? To the best of my knowledge it does not have to be a widely accepted thing to be considered "religion", because it is simply a system of beliefs.
In this sense, (if this is correct), every discussion of morals/ethics is a religious discussion. As soon as someone brings personal beliefs into it, it is a religious discussion, no matter what those beliefs are.

The difference comes when someone says "The BIBLE says (something) is bad" rather than "Personally I think (something) is bad" or "I believe (something) is bad because The BIBLE says so".

And religion can be one person's beliefs, but organized religion - Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Satanism (etc, etc) is where most people try to use their belief to bludgeon the rest of us to death (metaphorically speaking of course!)

Is not "religion" simply a belief of one person?

No, no it isn't. A belief is a proposition you hold in your head about whether or not something is true. If you hold it fixedly, ie will hold it regardless of any other stimulae and/or independent of justification, then it's a faith. If a faith or faiths are then used to build a system of other beliefs then its a religion.

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.
I agree. We support the proposal and further add that Aliste is trying to make the world into logical black-and-white.

A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as every heart knows.

DNA science now corroborates our heart-centered truth by proving that, from the moment of conception, a living entity is formed, a living entity that is genetically encoded as both human AND unique. From that moment on, that newly conceived human being retains that human being's one and only non-duplicatable and undeniably human genetic identification. This is reality, and it is not a matter for sophistrical conjecture.

It is also reality that an embryo is a newly conceived human being.

This U.N. resolution wants to take newly conceived human beings in embryonic form and kill them in the process of conducting experiments that might result in information and procedures that can be used to save the lives of others.

As "noble" as such ends may be portrayed, the means do not justify the end -- there are NO disposable people of any class in a just and civilized society, again, as every heart knows.

Though memory-and-emotion may create in us an affective link with loved-ones suffering from diseases that such "research" may help to cure, I will remind you, that in the hierarchy of human decision, memory-and-emotion remain insufficiently secondary and always invalid when in conflict with the very foundation of the center of our being: our heart.

Indeed, it is purely wrong to sacrifice the truth that is common to all hearts in the name of personal emotional affective gain.

When I say that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception is truth and a truth that is common to all hearts, I am stating reality to which all can agree when they are not centered in either their mere mind or their emotions.

For who among you cannnot say without certainty that you had a beginning to your very life, and that if you trace your existence back to that beginning point, wherever you stop along the way -- teen years, childhood, infancy, one-month pre-natal, third-trimester fetus, second trimester fetus, and on and on back in the history of your own very existence --, that you were ever anything but a unique human being, and that you will always come to a point in your life where, until you finally reach the moment of your conception, that there was still a real human being existence of your one and only very life prior to that traceable point? The answer: no one can, from their very heart -- we all, each and every one of us, had a beginning point to our own very life, and that beginning point is the moment of our conception, as each and every heart knows.

So, to experience your one and only very life, and to heart-centeredly know that such began at the moment of your conception, you commit an act of self-violation to deny the very right to a thriving life to any one else, no exceptions, that you have wanted -- that all living beings want and from the moment of their creation.

So I implore you to let go of your mere mind, and let go of memory-and-emotion, and remain honorably true to your own heart and very existence, even if interpersonal tragedy is causing others to be untrue to their heart, and vote NO on this resolution that would holocaustically condone the sacrifice of one class of human beings -- the newly conceived -- so that unfortunate others might continue living a little longer.

As sad as premature death is at the hands of degenerative disease, who among you would demand another to die, another who has barely had a chance to begin the wonderful experiences of life that you've already enjoyed so immensely, so that you might live a comparatively little longer? Indeed, who among you is such a coward, so afraid of the reality of your own mortality, that you would ask another to sacrifice nearly their entire one and only life for what comparatively little you have left?!!

So please, do the right thing -- by your own heart and the heart of all others, and vote NO on this horrific and holocaustic resolution.

Not only will voting NO be the honorable thing to do, but it will send a resounding message to science, that there will be no more holocaustic short cuts to "medical breakthroughs", and that we will accept neither procedure that leads to necessary pre-mature death or procedure that requires it in the name of anything science creates, be that weaponry, methods of abortion, or "medical breakthroughs".

And this way, we can keep the newly conceived human beings in embryo form in suspension, until science can get on the ball and create a better method of implantation that doesn't unnaturally sacrifice the lives of so many, so that the childless can adopt in this manner.

Even if the embryo's are not cognitive they will be. I also think euthanasia is also murder, those people will not recover. Embryo's are still developing and will so be humans who can think and move. You do not know if you are killing the next Albert Einstien or the next Hitler, either way you are terminating the life a a being who's only crime was not being able to fight back.

In response to True Heart's argument that the gift of human life is traceable to the origin of that life.

I do agree on the valid point that the span of any person's life (complete with full set of legally binding rights) includes the ultimate genesis period of fertilisation. However, I can't help feeling that this is entirely dependant on tracing somebody's life back through time from whence their existence is undeniable. Any attempt at tracing an embryo's life (or in fact any single event with one or more possible outcomes) forward into the future would be useless. Anyway, this is not my main counter-argument, but merely a whimsical appetiser.

Considering (as True heart has done) that the natural fertilisation of human gametes is a prerequisit for the obtaining of stem cells is false. Adult stem cells can be obtained from ubillical-cord blood samples (either from the patient in question or a suitable donor) or indeed from the patient's marrow cells for example.

But even in the case of embryonic stem cells (which are obtained from fertilised gametes and entail the destruction of embryos) I can see no direct violation of human rights interests, and this is because the embryos which are created are no more than a genetic abnormality. A natural embryo (which I will concur, is a human life whichever way you look at it) is formed at the fusion of the paternal sperm with the maternal ovum. An artificial embryo, such as the one to be created in the process of embryonic stem cell involves a denucleated egg-cell with that of a patient's cell. I can't remember the last time a human life spawned naturally from that set of circumstances. Technically, the organism produced would be nothing more than a lifeless tool, with no more rights or humanity than a strand of hair or a fingernail. The morality of fabricating organic skin from a burns patient for re-grafting is not questionned. So I propose that neither should the engineering of a 10-20 cell zygotic clone. And far be it from humanity to play God, at which point the destruction of such a clone would be a grace to society, and no doubt covered under an owner's right to destroy property (since the patient/owner has all of their genetic material contained within the zygote). Please note though that this is not the same as a twin, or any other natural offspring, due to the un-natural circumstances and method of creation. Thank you for listening.

Considering (as True heart has done) that the natural fertilisation of human gametes is a prerequisit for the obtaining of stem cells is false.
An individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception. A human gamete is a living individual human being. An embryo is a living individual human being. It does not matter by what means the conception occurred: such does not in any way cancel the reality that the conception is a living individual human being.

This U.N. resolution advocates killing individual human beings for scientific experimentation. That and that alone is the reason I oppose it.

Don't divert from the truth of the matter via an addiction to "science".


Adult stem cells can be obtained from ubillical-cord blood samples (either from the patient in question or a suitable donor) or indeed from the patient's marrow cells for example.
Yes indeed, and science should be encouraged to explore these areas of research as they do not involve the killing of newly conceived human beings.

Nevertheless, these avenues are irrelevant to the matter at hand. As long as the current U.N. resolution advocates killing newly conceived human beings, as it does so as to experiment with their stem cells, it violates the human heart, and thereby justifies its defeat.


But even in the case of embryonic stem cells (which are obtained from fertilised gametes and entail the destruction of embryos) I can see no direct violation of human rights interests, and this is because the embryos which are created are no more than a genetic abnormality. A natural embryo (which I will concur, is a human life whichever way you look at it) is formed at the fusion of the paternal sperm with the maternal ovum. An artificial embryo, such as the one to be created in the process of embryonic stem cell involves a denucleated egg-cell with that of a patient's cell. I can't remember the last time a human life spawned naturally from that set of circumstances. Technically, the organism produced would be nothing more than a lifeless tool, with no more rights or humanity than a strand of hair or a fingernail. The morality of fabricating organic skin from a burns patient for re-grafting is not questionned. So I propose that neither should the engineering of a 10-20 cell zygotic clone. And far be it from humanity to play God, at which point the destruction of such a clone would be a grace to society, and no doubt covered under an owner's right to destroy property (since the patient/owner has all of their genetic material contained within the zygote). Please note though that this is not the same as a twin, or any other natural offspring, due to the un-natural circumstances and method of creation. Thank you for listening.
The pseudoscientific use of technical terms to drive a sophistry does not in any way prevent the sophistry from being a sophistry that is easily debunked.

Indeed, simply take a testtube embryo and implant it in a womb and, thereby, impregnation occurs and that unique individual human being's life continues ... through all stages of gestation ... through birth ... childhood, etc., etc. It will not matter to that person if he or she was conceived in a womb or a testtube or how much time passed between the stages of that person's life -- such is irrelevant to that person, which is all that truly matters.

At no time is that person ever the "property" of another -- that concept was settled as invalid long ago, even if some people still get away with such attrocities. Hopefully, if we stay true to our hearts, we'll soon close these holocaustic loopholes too.

Sophistrical use of scienceisms as a method of affective and reality denial are absolutely irrelevant to the heart of the matter. Such irrationalisms are often employed to run from the guilt of past behavior or from feelings in general.

Just like to make an announcement, I will be at this forum less than I have been, so you can send your burning questions, comments, suggestions, rebutals, and arguements to my nation, Nykibo. I would also like to state a few facts and tidbits about ES Cells (Embryonic Stem Cells). ES Cells have been proven to have the ability to transform into more cells than Adult Stem Cells. Also, over 40,000 embryos in the United States alone are discarded each year from fertility centers all over the country. Now I know that statistics in the real world dont matter, but think of how much larger NationStates is than the US. There could be millions of embryos that would get discarded each year, but instead they could be put towards science.

You continue to throw at me that we're killing lives and its inhumane, but it seems that you people turn the other cheek when these embryos are discarded. You really have to consider this.

Just like to make an announcement, I will be at this forum less than I have been, so you can send your burning questions, comments, suggestions, rebutals, and arguements to my nation, Nykibo. I would also like to state a few facts and tidbits about ES Cells (Embryonic Stem Cells). ES Cells have been proven to have the ability to transform into more cells than Adult Stem Cells. Also, over 40,000 embryos in the United States alone are discarded each year from fertility centers all over the country. Now I know that statistics in the real world dont matter, but think of how much larger NationStates is than the US. There could be millions of embryos that would get discarded each year, but instead they could be put towards science.
I have highlighted in red your point's conclusion I wish to address.

If all those who are impoverished, drug-addicted, physically unhealthy, psychologically self-destructive ... and thereby destined for pre-mature demise anyway could instead be mandatorily killed while still in a science-valuable state and their bodies used to conduct research instead of being discarded, they could be put toward science.

Well, that's a pretty heartless quick-fix statement in the name of science, isn't it.

If all those who are impoverished, drug-addicted, physically unhealthy, psychologically self-destructive ... and thereby destined for pre-mature demise could be offered life-sustaining treatment for their maladies they could live healthy, happy and fulfilling lives.

Now, see how foundationally heart-centered this solution is?!

Which option would you want applied if this was your life being described?!

So then, let's look at your topical statement via the same mind v. heart examination method.

Over 40,000 embryos in the United States alone are discarded each year from fertility centers all over the country. There could be millions of embryos (in Nation States) that would get discarded each year but instead they could be put toward science.

Indeed, that's a pretty heartless quick-fix statement too, all in the name of science.

Over 40,000 embryos in the United States alone are discarded each year from fertility centers all over the country. There could be millions of embryos (in Nation States) that would get discarded each year, that could instead be left in stasis until methods of implantation would not create so many unnatural terminations and a moratorium placed on creating testtube embryos and artificial insemination until science develops techniques that create one embryo at a time with subsequent implantation in a total process that kills no more newly conceived human beings than would die under normal and natural methods of conception and impregnation. Once such an improved impregnation technique is developed then these perhaps millions of embryos can be implanted in women who otherwise would be childless.

Wow -- talk about heart!

A quick-fix science addictive "solution" is never justified over the heart-centered act of doing the right thing.

At what point in your life did you begin to erroneously think that science was the ultimate power in the universe? At what point in your life did science become more important to you than your own humanity that you'd advocate the needless killing of your fellow human beings for scientific experimentation?

at +7000 votes, its going to pass. Like it or not.


Well there are always further proposals that will perhaps correct my main concern, which is the allocation of government funds to such funding.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041128/1/3ovex.html

Stem Cell research gone good.

As Nykibo mentioned, Stem Cell research is an amazing new breakthrough in the world of Science and treatment. Stem Cells have the abilility to heal many diseases including Cancer, Parkinsins, and Alzheimers. These 3 diseases alone have the power to tear apart families and wreck lives. Why would anyone want peoples lives to be wrecked by diseases so disasterous? Let's take a look at one thing. Young girls who get pregnant more times than none prove to be terrible mothers. They are incapable of taking care of another life. They find the only solution is to give the baby up. I would much rather see a baby's life go towards saving someone elses than having that child grow up and make all the wrong desicions. The point is, a child's life is affected by the environment the child is put in. I want my fellow members of the UN to think about that. What if your mother or father was dying of Cancer, or was being eaten away by Alzheimers? Could you bear the pain of having your own mother or father forget who you are? I know I would not be able to take it and stem cell research helps both parties out. It saves the child from a life of pain that could easily be waiting ahead, and it can also help families torn apart by horrid diseases. Think twice before voting against Stem Cell research. Thank you. - George Penney (Cortus)

An individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception. A human gamete is a living individual human being. An embryo is a living individual human being. It does not matter by what means the conception occurred: such does not in any way cancel the reality that the conception is a living individual human being.


Honestly, who gives a crap? You're forgetting that normally these embryos are usually artificially created for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells. They wouldn't be born anyway. I know they're alive. I know that in a technical sense, they're human beings. But who cares?

Do I sound heartless? Maybe I am, and you know what? I don't care if I do, because life or not, at that stage it's just a bunch of cells. We willfully kill bunches of cells all the time. We kill off millions of bacteria when we take a shower or take antibiotics, and we kill off our own body cells every time we knock our heads against something. Hey, you yourself are covered from head to toe in dead cells. It's called your skin.

I guess I'm just superficial because I don't see a baby and a foetus as the same thing because babies cry and breathe on their own but foetuses don't, so I don't think the foetus is as much alive as the baby is.

But weigh this against the potential benefits for the millions of people who are suffering from Parkinsons. From diabetes. From nerve damage. While debate continues to rage over the philosophical aspects of when you consider a bunch of cells life, here you have people who are suffering, whose status is not in doubt at all. They are indisputably alive and if you put a petri dish in front of me and tell me there's an embryo in there and if I kill it the guy can be cured, pass the scalpel or whatever it is you use please.

The rights of the born outweigh the rights of the unborn. That's my stance on abortion too. So what if we were all foetuses once? I'm not a foetus now. Remember that in stem cell research, the embryos wouldn't have been born anyway.

True Heart, whilst I am equally uncomfortable with the utilitarian justification of experimenting on embryos, even if they would be discarded anyway, a couple of points:

An embryo is cerainly a distinct life. Whether it's a distinct human life is a matter open to question. The definition of "human" hasn't been adequately resolved yet, on this thread at least, to my mind (if Aliste can offer a definitive DNA %, though, that may change). I wouldn't agree that it is yet a human being, though. In my opinion "being" would imply person, and I think that under most accepted definitions of a person (ie self aware, cognitive entity) then an embryo wouldn't qualify.

It's also worth pointing out that Nykibo was referring in his first post to embryos that would have been killed anyway, either through abortion (whether or not you support abortion as things stand it is legal) or unused embryos from IVF treatment (many embryos are discarded since prospective parents either become pregnant before they are needed or change their minds). So the needless killing element doesn't apply, they would be killed anyway.

You consider them life, but not human life.

Enn, let's think of this rationally. The male gamete or 'sperm' carries 23 chromosomes. A woman's 'egg' also has 23 chromosomes.

When these two gametes unite, the result is the characteristic human zygote with 46 chromosomes. This is the very beginning of a human life - this is where the human life cycle begins.


This is equivalent to saying when you have all the wood, concrete, wire, and such together, you have a house. Wrong. So your premise is incorrect and anything built from there can be ignored.




To call it a life but that of which is not human is false as its characteristics are certainly human - the 46 chromosomes and the unique DNA. Granted we share 95% ? of our DNA with chimps - but that 5% makes a difference.


Here's a skin cell of mine. It has 100% of human DNA. Its an endodermal cell, so it is alive.

Tell me again how it's human.



The point is, from a scientific point of view - human life begins at fertilization.


Unproven. You have no sources, your premise is crap, you have proven nothing.

We will once again foray into the "life begins" arguement if you like - such as "As you say 'life begins' at thus and such a point, perhaps you will point out where life is not to begin with?"



Although you are correct, the 'egg' and 'sperm' are potential life - two pieces to the puzzle - but you are wrong when you say that upon them uniting, it is still only 'potential life'.


Unproven.



Once again from a scientific point of view - life begins at fertilization and this applies to humans. When a human male's sperm unites with a human woman's egg - what you have is a human zygote, a human life.


Repeating an unproven hypothesis, and stating it is fact, merely makes your arguement silly.



Now one could argue of course that although it is a human life it is not a person. I am not even inclined to argure that it is a person, I'd have to agree that it is not a person. But I cannot argue it is not a human life because it most certainly is.

Potentially? Maybe. But we do not agree, and you have not proven, so your arguement is still dead.



Also one could argue that because it cannot live outside of the womb, blah blah blah.

But all of these arguments are after the fact, the fact that it is a human life. Do not kid yourself - it is. Heh.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

We do not "kid" ourselves - you have presented an empty arguement about a mass of cells, nothing more.

Do try again.

If there's one discussion where emotional arguments are valid, it's this one. We're talking about a sensitive subject with many moral issues attached to it.


If you are discussing science, fact and logic is all that is acceptable. Emotion has no place in science, save as something to test.

Groot Gouda, thank you!

I can't stand it when people make rough generalizations, "religious zealots", "religious fundamentalists", etc.

I'm not religious - I've already decided that I'm going to live my life trying to do good and be a good person and that is all.

However I still hold certain morals and ethics, it has nothing to do with religion as far as I am concerned.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Good!

So be a good example of what to be - as you see it - and refrain from attempting to jam any view down anyone's throat, and you will be seen as a good man.

I, on the other hand, could care less what people think of me, and so will continue jamming.

Pun intended.

(lots of emotionally charged rhetoric)

My, isn't it wonderful to have a member of the cloth among us. How well you twist words to make each action that does not mirror your ideology an emotional crime.

How sour it must be that some of us simply don't care for rhetoric, and will get on with the business of making the world better, through the advancement of science.

And how ridiculous you and yours will look, should this research result in a cure, a single cure, which will make more lives longer, at the cost of lives that would never be.

Better luck next time. We support stem cell research.

I haven't read this entire thread because (1) it's too long and (2) I decided at around page 8 that the debate had degenerated to name calling rather than a debate of the proposal. Therefore, please accept my apologies if I'm repeating opinions expressed by others on pages 9 through 25!

I am generally supportive of stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research, but will be abstaining from voting on this proposal.

The author has stated that the action required if it passes is that if a scientist asks his or her government for funding for stem cell research, then it should be granted. What is the government doesn't fund research at all? Or has a limited research budget with more important projects already in train? Why is it the UN's place to dictate how individual nations should spend their money? I don't think it is the place of the UN.

Separately from my opinions about the actual proposal, there has been lots of debate on this thread regarding the destruction of human life and the definition of when human life begins. This has often been compared with abortion though the comment has been made that stem cells can only be harvested if the egg is fertilised externally from the mother (i.e. you can't use an aborted embryo for stem cell research).

I find the parallels regarding the destruction of human life to be quite flimsy when comparing embryonic stem cell research with abortion .

In the case of abortion, a human life that would have existed is destroyed. The life was produced, whether on purpose or not, and, without abortion, would most likely have lead to human life. Banning abortion effectively saves lives.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, if there is no research, there is no possibility of life because the egg and sperm would never be joined in the petrie dish. The life that is destroyed is one that was never going to exist anyway. The count of human lives is not reduced in stem cell research. At worst, there is no change. Potentially the count of human lives could be increased (i.e. thousands of lives saved by the medical breakthrough).

There is no one to be "saved" by disallowing embryonic stem cell research.

I'm not sure which is more absurd, the fact that this proposal made it to the resolution stage, or the fact that it's going to pass.

I'm not sure which is more absurd, the fact that this proposal made it to the resolution stage, or the fact that it's going to pass.

Flip a coin, it will make you feel better.

As Nykibo mentioned, Stem Cell research is an amazing new breakthrough in the world of Science and treatment. Stem Cells have the abilility to heal many diseases including Cancer, Parkinsins, and Alzheimers. These 3 diseases alone have the power to tear apart families and wreck lives. Why would anyone want peoples lives to be wrecked by diseases so disasterous? Let's take a look at one thing. Young girls who get pregnant more times than none prove to be terrible mothers. They are incapable of taking care of another life. They find the only solution is to give the baby up. I would much rather see a baby's life go towards saving someone elses than having that child grow up and make all the wrong desicions. The point is, a child's life is affected by the environment the child is put in. I want my fellow members of the UN to think about that. What if your mother or father was dying of Cancer, or was being eaten away by Alzheimers? Could you bear the pain of having your own mother or father forget who you are? I know I would not be able to take it and stem cell research helps both parties out. It saves the child from a life of pain that could easily be waiting ahead, and it can also help families torn apart by horrid diseases. Think twice before voting against Stem Cell research. Thank you. - George Penney (Cortus)
Yes, fellow U.N. members, of course Cortus wants you to think about this ... because if you think and think and think about this, you'll shut down your ability to feel, and that will cost you your facility for empathy -- to feel as others feel, to experience intuitively and in your gut what it would be like to have your one and only life terminated as a sacrifice to a "greater good".

But then Cortus conveniently argues that, now that you've turned off your appropriate affective ability, turn it back on only as he directs you as he then says that if anything needs to be "felt", it's the memory-and-emotion link between you and your loved ones, whereby you put yourself in a very difficult position of the sophistry trap of "either" choosing: 1) to follow your very heart and say NO to this resolution just as you would say NO to taking any life for holocaustic scientific experimentation, or 2) to follow your memory-and-emotion and choose to prevent the illness and death of your personal loved one at the sacrificial expense of the very lives of others (newly conceived human beings).

If you choose option 1, then his "decisive point" is that you will be compelled to feel "guilt" for letting your loved-one die. That is part of the sophistry. But in truth, if you choose option 1, you have chosen not to advocate killing newly conceived human beings, and that's all that is true. Your choice not to kill newly conceived human beings dose not mean that, in effect, you "killed" your loved-one -- the degenerative disease killed your loved one, not you.

People die from disease -- that's real life. It is not your job or responsibility to save them if doing so means killing others. By choosing option 1, you follow your heart, and in the healthy human psyche, the heart overrides memory-and-emotion, memory-and-emotion being a secondary value decision point that is never in conflict with the heart in a healthy psyche. Cortus is asking you to make an unhealthy choice.

And, by asking you to make this choice Cortus is telling you that, okay, if you choose option 1, it's gonna hurt emotionally, and you know you won't be able to stand that pain, so you better choose option 2 and kill someone you don't know so at least if someone has to die you won't hurt emotionally from that death. From his perspective, you don't have the courage to do the right "non-guilt-driven" thing if it's going to "cause" you temporary emotional pain. In other words, he asks you to do the egocentrically selfish wrong thing because, after all, you are most likely an emotional coward still denially caught up in your unresolved childhood guilt that would just slay you if you ever had to feel it again.

Don't fall for the psychological traps in Cortus' "argument". Be true to your heart and to the very lives of others so that you don't directly and explictly advocate their death to "save" the lives of others, as such an advocation is a violation against the human heart, your heart and the heart and very lives of the newly conceived human beings.

I'll pull a Vastiva.

True Heart- Emotional arguement. Invalid.

I'll pull a Vastiva.

True Heart- Emotional arguement. Invalid.

I'll be famous forever.

I'll be famous forever.

I'm building a shrine to you in my garage and planning on starting a religion based around you. I'll just print out the online arguements you have been in, make them into a holy book, and force people to read them. A hundred years down the line, when it takes over the US, I can only imagine the debates on your existance that will pop up.

(really long, manipulative, and framed post)

Here we go again.

You know, it is really clever of you, how you write. It is intentionally formed to draw out a specific set of emotional reactions from the audience, to tease those who attempt to throw off your manipulation - thereby guilting them into accepting it further.

Aren't you clever! My, my, my. Must remember - "When I don't have a real, logical arguement, attempt to sway the emotions of the audience and guilt them into believing I know what I'm talking about".

No, wait - how did that line go?

"Jedi Mind Tricks only work on the Weak Minded".

"Jedi Mind Tricks only work on the Weak Minded".

Well, majorities do rule democracies ;)

More reasons for dictatorships.

Honestly, who gives a crap?
As you admit, you certainly don't care at all that unique individual newly conceived living human beings will be holocaustically sacrificed for scientific experimentation.


You're forgetting that normally these embryos are usually artificially created for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells.
I'm not forgetting anything -- the truth is that your statement here is patently false. The newly conceived human beings in embryo form were created to be implanted in a womb, as that is their purpose in life, not to be guinea pigs for scientific experiments. You, however, may be "forgetting" that your sophistry is easy to debunk.


They wouldn't be born anyway.
Not if your cruelty had any say in the matter.


I know they're alive.
Yep -- you do know that they're alive individual human beings at the early stage of their lives ... which makes it all the more tragic that such is meaningless to you. You must have very little self respect.


I know that in a technical sense, they're human beings.
Ah, the excuses begin to set in -- a "technical" sense ... as if using the word "technical" somehow lessens the reality that they are human and that they are alive, and that you are advocating killing them. Sorry -- you're sophistry fails.


But who cares?
Not Kelssek -- Kelssek doesn't care -- Kelssek doesn't care at all.


Do I sound heartless?
You sound like someone who is mentally centered, someone who hides in his mind from the truth in his heart, someone who has done so, probably for a long time.


Maybe I am, and you know what? I don't care if I do,
That's right, you obviously don't care if you're "heartless", sad as that truly is.


because life or not, at that stage it's just a bunch of cells.
Oooo, here comes more of that sophistry your mind is so good at conjuring up. Now your mind continues its minimalizing belittlement abuse of a newly conceived individual human being by reducing that human being to merely "just a bunch of cells". Wow -- Hitler couldn't be prouder than if you were talking about a Jew.


We willfully kill bunches of cells all the time.
Oh my ... here it comes, more minimalizing belittlement reductio ad absurdia. How ubiquitously typical of the mentally centered's lack of true heart.


We kill off millions of bacteria when we take a shower or take antibiotics,
Wow, how myopic of you Kelssek -- you can't seem to distinguish between whole human beings (the newly conceived) and mere germs! That's scary! Your powers of reasoning are certainly not to be trusted!


and we kill off our own body cells every time we knock our heads against something.
Again, you erroneously equate in both substance and value the life of a complete and whole individual human being (the newly conceived) to one of the skin cells on your forehead. You continue to draw specious analogies of superficial form while completely ignoring the major substantive differences that render your analogies inapplicable.


Hey, you yourself are covered from head to toe in dead cells. It's called your skin.
Again, another irrelevant diversion by Kelssek. The heart of the matter is just really tough for you to take, isn't it!


I guess I'm just superficial
And that's obvious to everyone -- certainly not one to be trusted with the deep substantive matter inherent to this issue.


because I don't see a baby and a foetus as the same thing
Good for you -- they're not the same thing ... other than both being unique individual living human beings derserving of your respect for their right to life!


because babies cry and breathe on their own but foetuses don't, so I don't think the foetus is as much alive as the baby is.
Keep in mind that some people might say that people, such as yourself, who don't follow their heart and who are instead ruled by their irrationally-functioning mind are not "as much alive", and so belong lower down on the kill-chain.

Your differentiation is irrelevant with regard to the right to life. Your superficial irrationality is meaningless, as both a foetus and a baby are unique individual living human beings, and that is the only adjectivized qualification for the equal right to life.


But weigh this against the potential benefits for the millions of people who are suffering
No. The act of so weighing is invalid.

NAZI Germany holocaustically experimented on Jews because they "weighed the sacrifice of the Jews in scientific experiments against the potential benefits for the millions of SUPERIOR GERMANS who were suffering".

You would do well to stop cranking out your knee-jerk superficial horrors of thought and begin to take a real look at what you're truly saying.


from Parkinsons. From diabetes. From nerve damage.
List any disease you want. There simply are no disposable people in the human heart.

As sad as premature death is from disease, the solution to the problem does not involve the holocaustic sacrifice of a class of people -- in this case, the sacrifice of the newly conceived unique individual living human beings.


While debate continues to rage over the philosophical aspects of when you consider a bunch of cells life,
A unique individual human being begins to live that human being's one and only life at the moment of conception as DNA science and every heart knows.

This is not a matter of conjecture -- there is no doubt or true debate on the matter.

You live in a perpetual sophistry of mind if you think this is a debatable matter.

The only one's "doubting" this matter in "debate" are those who are trying desperately to "justify" their sophistries of convenience, and their opinion simply doesn't matter when it comes to the truth.


here you have people who are suffering, whose status is not in doubt at all.
Neither is the "unique individual living human being" status of the newly conceived in doubt ... except in the dysfunctional mind of people like you.

Both the newly conceived and the post natal suffering tragic degenerative disease are of the status of "unique individual living human being", and, thereby, of equal right to life. The sacrifice of either cannot be justified in the human heart.


They are indisputably alive and if you put a petri dish in front of me and tell me there's an embryo in there and if I kill it the guy can be cured, pass the scalpel or whatever it is you use please.
Fortunately, you are not running the world ... or the end of all humanity cannot be far behind. Your lack of contact with your own heart is sadly appalling. I can't help but wonder if you're one of those relatively few who says the holocaust never happened!


The rights of the born outweigh the rights of the unborn.
From God's lips to Kelssek's ears?!

Says who? Who decides? Run that one by me again ... .

Your statement here is pure, sick mentalism.


That's my stance on abortion too.
Not surprising, you fuk-and-kill funster, you.


So what if we were all foetuses once? I'm not a foetus now.
You're not a baby any more either ... so the next thing we know you'll be advocating the killing of babies for some scientific research project.

You are one scary person!


Remember that in stem cell research, the embryos wouldn't have been born anyway.
And your sophistry finishes by returning now to the beginning of your cycle of truth denial.


Sorry to be so hard on you, Kelssek, but we competent mental health practitioners sometimes need to make an example of the damagedly dysfunctional as a symptom-warning sign that others may use to recognize those same symptoms in themselves and seek treatment before their denial becomes pathological.

Are you sure you're not a priest?

As you admit, you certainly don't care at all that unique individual newly conceived living human beings will be holocaustically sacrificed for scientific experimentation.

Reframing emotional arguement. Invalid.



I'm not forgetting anything -- the truth is that your statement here is patently false. The newly conceived human beings in embryo form were created to be implanted in a womb, as that is their purpose in life, not to be guinea pigs for scientific experiments. You, however, may be "forgetting" that your sophistry is easy to debunk.


Reframed emotional arguement. Invalid.



Not if your cruelty had any say in the matter.


Framed. Invalid.



Yep -- you do know that they're alive individual human beings at the early stage of their lives ... which makes it all the more tragic that such is meaningless to you. You must have very little self respect.


Framed emotional manipulation. Invalid.



Ah, the excuses begin to set in -- a "technical" sense ... as if using the word "technical" somehow lessens the reality that they are human and that they are alive, and that you are advocating killing them. Sorry -- you're sophistry fails.

Framed manipulative emotional arguement. Invalid.




Not Kelssek -- Kelssek doesn't care -- Kelssek doesn't care at all.


Flamish. Invalid.



You sound like someone who is mentally centered, someone who hides in his mind from the truth in his heart, someone who has done so, probably for a long time.

Manipulative, calls for Kelssek to defend, which will result in emotional manipulation. Invalid.




That's right, you obviously don't care if you're "heartless", sad as that truly is.


Deceitful. Manipulative. Invalid.



Oooo, here comes more of that sophistry your mind is so good at conjuring up. Now your mind continues its minimalizing belittlement abuse of a newly conceived individual human being by reducing that human being to merely "just a bunch of cells". Wow -- Hitler couldn't be prouder than if you were talking about a Jew.

Gee, someone brought up the Nazis. Whoopie! Invalid analogy. Invalid.



Oh my ... here it comes, more minimalizing belittlement reductio ad absurdia. How ubiquitously typical of the mentally centered's lack of true heart.


Another attempt to manipulatively draw into emotional arguement. Invalid.



Wow, how myopic of you Kelssek -- you can't seem to distinguish between whole human beings (the newly conceived) and mere germs! That's scary! Your powers of reasoning are certainly not to be trusted!


Pretends your point is right, no proof. Manipulative. Invalid.



Again, you erroneously equate in both substance and value the life of a complete and whole individual human being (the newly conceived) to one of the skin cells on your forehead. You continue to draw specious analogies of superficial form while completely ignoring the major substantive differences that render your analogies inapplicable.


Use of a specious analogy to defend a specious analogy. Manipulative. Invalid.



Again, another irrelevant diversion by Kelssek. The heart of the matter is just really tough for you to take, isn't it!

"Pots and Kettles" arguement. Manipulative. Invalid.



And that's obvious to everyone -- certainly not one to be trusted with the deep substantive matter inherent to this issue.

False group arguement. Invalid.



Good for you -- they're not the same thing ... other than both being unique individual living human beings derserving of your respect for their right to life!

Emotional arguement. Invalid.



Keep in mind that some people might say that people, such as yourself, who don't follow their heart and who are instead ruled by their irrationally-functioning mind are not "as much alive", and so belong lower down on the kill-chain.

Reframing of "that which is not emotional is irrational". Manipulative emotional arguement. Invalid.



Your differentiation is irrelevant with regard to the right to life. Your superficial irrationality is meaningless, as both a foetus and a baby are unique individual living human beings, and that is the only adjectivized qualification for the equal right to life.

Invalid. Cells have no right to life inherent in their being a cell.



No. The act of so weighing is invalid.


Illogical. Invalid.



NAZI Germany holocaustically experimented on Jews because they "weighed the sacrifice of the Jews in scientific experiments against the potential benefits for the millions of SUPERIOR GERMANS who were suffering".

Another "NAZI!" rant. Invalid.



You would do well to stop cranking out your knee-jerk superficial horrors of thought and begin to take a real look at what you're truly saying.

Reframing to assume ignorance by Kelssek. Invalid.



List any disease you want. There simply are no disposable people in the human heart.


Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, we could go on, but your point is already Invalid.



As sad as premature death is from disease, the solution to the problem does not involve the holocaustic sacrifice of a class of people -- in this case, the sacrifice of the newly conceived unique individual living human beings.

Invalid.



A unique individual human being begins to live that human being's one and only life at the moment of conception as DNA science and every heart knows.

Belittling emotional manipulation. Invalid.



This is not a matter of conjecture -- there is no doubt or true debate on the matter.

Assumes superiority, or that the debate is already decided. Invalid.



You live in a perpetual sophistry of mind if you think this is a debatable matter.

Emotional arguement, invalid.



The only one's "doubting" this matter in "debate" are those who are trying desperately to "justify" their sophistries of convenience, and their opinion simply doesn't matter when it comes to the truth.


Assumes you know "the truth". Invalid.



Neither is the "unique individual living human being" status of the newly conceived in doubt ... except in the dysfunctional mind of people like you.


Ooooh, insult. Invalid.



Both the newly conceived and the post natal suffering tragic degenerative disease are of the status of "unique individual living human being", and, thereby, of equal right to life. The sacrifice of either cannot be justified in the human heart.

Emotional arguement. Invalid.



Fortunately, you are not running the world ... or the end of all humanity cannot be far behind. Your lack of contact with your own heart is sadly appalling. I can't help but wonder if you're one of those relatively few who says the holocaust never happened!

Personal attack on Kelssek's emotions and emotional well-being. Emotional manipulation. Invalid.




From God's lips to Kelssek's ears?!

Says who? Who decides? Run that one by me again ... .

Your statement here is pure, sick mentalism.

As opposed to your "pure emotionalism"? Invalid.




Not surprising, you fuk-and-kill funster, you.


Emotional attack, invalid.



You're not a baby any more either ... so the next thing we know you'll be advocating the killing of babies for some scientific research project.

You are one scary person!

Invalid analogy. Invalid.



And your sophistry finishes by returning now to the beginning of your cycle of truth denial.

You don't know the truth. Invalid.



Sorry to be so hard on you, Kelssek, but we competent mental health practitioners sometimes need to make an example of the damagedly dysfunctional as a symptom-warning sign that others may use to recognize those same symptoms in themselves and seek treatment before their denial becomes pathological.

Ahh, assumes PARENTAL role. You have proven nothing. Emotional manipulation. Invalid.

Sum of "TRUE HEART" Post: INVALID.

An embryo is cerainly a distinct life. Whether it's a distinct human life is a matter open to question.
No it isn't -- this matter isn't open to question at all.

A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as DNA science and every heart knows.

Maybe in the minds of sophisters who conjur up denial-based false excuses to fuk-and-kill such is still "debatable", but not in the hearts of anyone is this a matter of conjecture ... and heart always overrules both memory-and-emotion and mind, especially dysfunctional mind.

This matter has long been decided -- it is simply not at issue.


The definition of "human" hasn't been adequately resolved yet, on this thread at least, to my mind (if Aliste can offer a definitive DNA %, though, that may change). I wouldn't agree that it is yet a human being, though. In my opinion "being" would imply person, and I think that under most accepted definitions of a person (ie self aware, cognitive entity) then an embryo wouldn't qualify.
There is always something that a person gains from positing irrational and untrue sophistries, something he wouldn't be able to derive if he simply told the straight truth of the matter.

So the question I must ask you is what value accrues to you from your minimalizing belittlement false definition-abuse of newly conceived individual living human beings -- what does this specious denial of reality buy you?


It's also worth pointing out that Nykibo was referring in his first post to embryos that would have been killed anyway, either through abortion (whether or not you support abortion as things stand it is legal) or unused embryos from IVF treatment (many embryos are discarded since prospective parents either become pregnant before they are needed or change their minds). So the needless killing element doesn't apply, they would be killed anyway.
Computer-minds that cannot discern human meaning are concerned only with whether something is "legal" or not. So, yes, it always does matter in the human heart about everything -- such as abortion, to which I am opposed except in direct self-defense of the mother's very life -- whether or not something is "legal".

Nykibo was simply wrong about the compelling need to categorize these relevant human beings as "embryos that would have been killed anyway". As I pointed out a few posts ago, there is a healthy heart-centered solution to that issue which causes his quick-fix mental assumption that they are "doomed" either way to pale in comparison.

So the solution is not to find a "better" use of killing them, but to stop killing them for ANY reason!

One bad law-decision does not justify another.

Keep your heart -- it's permanent. U.N. resolutions are sometimes temporary -- they can always be overturned in light of new-and-improved information.

No it isn't -- this matter isn't open to question at all.

If that were true, there wouldn't be threads like this. Invalid.



A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as DNA science and every heart knows.

False grouping. Invalid.



Maybe in the minds of sophisters who conjur up denial-based false excuses to fuk-and-kill such is still "debatable", but not in the hearts of anyone is this a matter of conjecture ... and heart always overrules both memory-and-emotion and mind, especially dysfunctional mind.

False statement. Invalid.



This matter has long been decided -- it is simply not at issue.

Repeating a false statement does not make it true. Invalid.



There is always something that a person gains from positing irrational and untrue sophistries, something he wouldn't be able to derive if he simply told the straight truth of the matter.

True - so why do you post the sophistries? Invalid.



So the question I must ask you is what value accrues to you from your minimalizing belittlement false definition-abuse of newly conceived individual living human beings -- what does this specious denial of reality buy you?


Emotional manipulation. Invalid.



Computer-minds that cannot discern human meaning are concerned only with whether something is "legal" or not. So, yes, it always does matter in the human heart about everything -- such as abortion, to which I am opposed except in direct self-defense of the mother's very life -- whether or not something is "legal".

Emotional arguement. Invalid.



Nykibo was simply wrong about the compelling need to categorize these relevant human beings as "embryos that would have been killed anyway". As I pointed out a few posts ago, there is a healthy heart-centered solution to that issue which causes his quick-fix mental assumption that they are "doomed" either way to pale in comparison.

Emotional arguement, "belittling", assumes conclusion. Invalid.



So the solution is not to find a "better" use of killing them, but to stop killing them for ANY reason!

Invalid.



One bad law-decision does not justify another.

Assumes this is a "bad law decision". Emotional arguement, calls for conclusion. Invalid.



Keep your heart -- it's permanent. U.N. resolutions are sometimes temporary -- they can always be overturned in light of new-and-improved information.

The Jarvik line comes to mind.

The rest of the statement is true, and valid.

One valid statement out of how many???

Oh well. Maybe it will entertain someone.

This is equivalent to saying when you have all the wood, concrete, wire, and such together, you have a house. Wrong. So your premise is incorrect and anything built from there can be ignored.
Sorry, Vastiva, but it is you who is wrong and guilty of sophistry.

We aren't building houses here. We are building human beings.

Your over-focus on analogy of "form" at the sacrifice of the truly meaningful reality of substance renders your house sophistry inapplicable.

For the reality is that this "house" is fully built at the moment of conception. Because the substantive subject is human beings and not real "houses", you are dealing here with "houses" that are alive and thus grow into glorius mansions of humanity ... if sophisters like you aren't allowed to "demolish" them for your egocentrically selfish fuk-and-kill purposes.


Here's a skin cell of mine. It has 100% of human DNA. Its an endodermal cell, so it is alive.

Tell me again how it's human.
Here's the rest of you aside from that one skin cell. The rest of you has 100% of human DNA. It's all the rest of your cells, so they are all alive.

Tell me again how the rest of all of your cells together is human.

If they are the same, then let's flip a coin and see which of the two -- your one endodermal cell or all the rest of your cells together -- we can destroy. By your own "merely celsl" sophistry it shouldn't matter.

The reality remains, Vastiva -- it doesn't matter the number of cells, what matters is which one(s) in the moment are you.


Unproven. You have no sources, your premise is crap, you have proven nothing.
Keep going ... talking to the mirror can sometimes be helpful.


We will once again foray into the "life begins" arguement if you like - such as "As you say 'life begins' at thus and such a point, perhaps you will point out where life is not to begin with?"
A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as DNA science and every heart knows.

This is all that needs to be said on the matter -- it overrides any argument of sophistry your mind can conjur.


Unproven. Repeating an unproven hypothesis, and stating it is fact, merely makes your arguement silly. Potentially? Maybe. But we do not agree, and you have not proven, so your arguement is still dead. We do not "kid" ourselves - you have presented an empty arguement about a mass of cells, nothing more.
I see you are still conversing with the mirror -- good.

Maybe after awhile you'll get it that your mind is not supreme, and that the mentalistic sophistries of denial it creates pale in comparison to the common-to-all truth that resides in the human heart.

I strongly suggest you seek a competent therapist and deal with your process-addiction to science.


Do try again.
No need -- your argument is finished.

If you are discussing science, fact and logic is all that is acceptable. Emotion has no place in science, save as something to test.
We are not discussing mere science. We are not discussing religion or morality or ethics or any other mere similar mentalisms.

We are discussing whole real and alive human beings, human beings that begin to live from the moment of conception, human beings that are endowed with the inalienable right to life from the moment of their creation.

No appeal to the comparatively mere nothings of science, religion, morality, ethics, or any other pre-conceived concept can override this inherent right to life of newly conceived human beings.

True Heart, you seem to be implying one of two things.

1) Either everyone feels the same about everything - that everyone's 'heart' says the same thing.

I don't see how that could be true.

People think and feel about things in different ways - that is the basis for individuality, far more than any genetic research could ever give. If we all felt the same about everything, then we would act the same. In effect, we would be automatons.

2) If that is not the case, then you mean that what you feel is better than what others feel, and that we should all conform to what you say.

Both of these are extremely insulting. So which is it?

At least this one is aimed at me. Whoo hoo! I feel special.


Sorry, Vastiva, but it is you who is wrong and guilty of sophistry.

*yawn*



We aren't building houses here. We are building human beings.

"We're" not building anything. The creation of cell format is a function of DNA. "You" have nothing to do with it.



Your over-focus on analogy of "form" at the sacrifice of the truly meaningful reality of substance renders your house sophistry inapplicable.

Attempt at emotional manipulation. Invalid.



For the reality is that this "house" is fully built at the moment of conception. Because the substantive subject is human beings and not real "houses", you are dealing here with "houses" that are alive and thus grow into glorius mansions of humanity ... if sophisters like you aren't allowed to "demolish" them for your egocentrically selfish fuk-and-kill purposes.

If the "house" were "fully built at the moment of conception", it could get up and leave and walk around and vote. It can't.

The rest is emotionalist felgercarb.

Invalid.




Here's the rest of you aside from that one skin cell. The rest of you has 100% of human DNA. It's all the rest of your cells, so they are all alive.

By this arguement, a larger part is human, the smaller is not. This makes gametes and zygotes not human. Thank you for arguing my side.

Point mine.



Tell me again how the rest of all of your cells together is human.

I've past our three way test. Next question?



If they are the same, then let's flip a coin and see which of the two -- your one endodermal cell or all the rest of your cells together -- we can destroy. By your own "merely celsl" sophistry it shouldn't matter.

Life is choice and learning to choose. Do as you will, accept the consequences.

However, I - as an independant human being and "person", having passed our three way test - am defined as having rights and protection under law.

Clumps of cells have no rights.

So another invalid arguement.



The reality remains, Vastiva -- it doesn't matter the number of cells, what matters is which one(s) in the moment are you.

Sure! So the "clump of cells" which is the mother has rights. The one which is currently not a person, not an individual human being, and is defined as having no rights, has no rights. That "person" does not exist for purposes of the law until they are an independant human being.



Keep going ... talking to the mirror can sometimes be helpful.


So that's how you do it! :p



A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as DNA science and every heart knows.

False groupism, assumes conclusion, Invalid.



This is all that needs to be said on the matter -- it overrides any argument of sophistry your mind can conjur.

Invalid.



I see you are still conversing with the mirror -- good.

Not even worth the time to answer.



Maybe after awhile you'll get it that your mind is not supreme, and that the mentalistic sophistries of denial it creates pale in comparison to the common-to-all truth that resides in the human heart.

Emotional arguement, Invalid.



I strongly suggest you seek a competent therapist and deal with your process-addiction to science.

Insult, Invalid.



No need -- your argument is finished.

Yours never started.

:D

We are not discussing mere science. We are not discussing religion or morality or ethics or any other mere similar mentalisms.

*I* am discussing science, and scientific proofs. Also legalities. You are framing your emotionalist arguements to manipulate.



We are discussing whole real and alive human beings, human beings that begin to live from the moment of conception, human beings that are endowed with the inalienable right to life from the moment of their creation.


No, we're discussing clumps of cells with no legal rights. Actually, that's not entirely true - I'm discussing, you're manipulating with your italics.



No appeal to the comparatively mere nothings of science, religion, morality, ethics, or any other pre-conceived concept can override this inherent right to life of newly conceived human beings.

*Yawn* Whatever. You cease to amuse me.

Just in case anyone missed it :

True Heart is using italics to emotionally manipulate. Its a technique called "Framing".

You can find interesting articles on it here (http://www.workingpsychology.com/topics.html) and here (http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002906.html) and here. (http://behaviouralfinance.net/framing/)

Or you could do your own google search.

Framing, btw, is not effective if you know how it works and how to manipulate yourself around it.

My, isn't it wonderful to have a member of the cloth among us.
A member of the cloth? Where?! Where is this member of the cloth?! Where ... ... oh ... you mean "me".

Well, let me correct your erroneous assumption of rhetorical convenience, Vastiva.

I am not a member of the cloth. I'm not a minister, parson, rabbi, etc. Hell, I'm not even a practitioner of a religion. I'm not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, New Ager or anything religious in any way.

I am an aeonic writer of obelisks. You will experience me as a competent mental health practitioner -- a counselor in the venacular.

My particular expertise allows me to easily see the sophistries of denial conjured up in the minds of others. So thereby from your perspective, I suppose you might delude me to be a "member of the cloth", seeing how that trade is also practiced in the human psyche, though, of course, you would be in error ... and, once again, you are.


How well you twist words
Heh heh! If I had a dime for every time a client of mine told me that revealing their articles of denial to their face was "twisting their words", I'd be a rich counselor today!

I realize that being exposed can be painful for you, Vastiva, but if you're like my clients and can eventually be honest, you'll come to thank me for it.


to make each action that does not mirror your ideology
Translation: "to take my, Vastiva's, sophistries of self-deceit and equate them to".


an emotional crime.
That's a fair figurative. Indeed, sophistries of self-deceit such as you have expressed in this thread are usually based in emotional dishonesty, which is wholely criminal to your self-esteem and your ability to speak the truth.


How sour it must be that some of us simply don't care for rhetoric,
For someone who doesn't care for rhetoric, you're quite good at creating it ... that and creating false assumptions, such as that I'm a "member of the cloth".


and will get on with the business of making the world better, through the advancement of science.
The advancement of science in and of itself has sometimes made the world a better place ... and sometimes not.

The constant creation of "better" WMDs is self-serving science run amuck that threatens to destroy the world. A destroyed world is not a better place.

Science must be guilded to serve humanity, as science is merely a modern cousin of religion ... and I'm sure you know of the attrocities that have been committed in the name of religion run amuck ... just as you now advocate committing attrocities against newly conceived living individual human beings in the name of science.

If you think science itself, ungoverned by the human heart, is intrinsically sufficient to make the world a better place, then you have self-servingly conveniently forgotten the lesson the rest of us remember about NAZI Germany.


And how ridiculous you and yours will look, should this research result in a cure, a single cure, which will make more lives longer, at the cost of lives that would never be.
No, Vastiva -- how guilt-ridden you will "feel" when you finally come to consciousness and realize the Hitlerian holocaustic error of your "scientific" experiments.

These lives, as you accurately reference them, would and could still be if your heart and not your mind was their advocate.

I can bring you to consciousness anytime I wish ... so I wouldn't be too smug about it if I were you, as you would then painfully realize not only the error of your ways here, but the horror of your manipulative success in getting other self-deceived mentally centered to conspire holocaustically along with you.

Trust me -- it won't be worth it to you ... and euphemistically looking "ridiculous" will be far from the suicidal depression that you will endure for your horrific killing after humanity soon reveals the prevention for these diseases -- prevention that does not require the sacrifice of the lives of newly conceived human beings. Really, Vastiva, I'd wait for the prevention, if I were you.

Me, on the other hand? I remain true to my heart, even while all about me may be losing theirs. It matters not whether I win or lose, but that I speak honest and true from my own heart about that which is common to all human hearts.


Better luck next time.
Believe me, my "luck" will continue to improve.


We support stem cell research.
So do I ... just not the kind that requires killing human beings to conduct that research.

Just in case anyone missed it :

True Heart is using italics to emotionally manipulate. Its a technique called "Framing".

You can find interesting articles on it here (http://www.workingpsychology.com/topics.html) and here (http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002906.html) and here. (http://behaviouralfinance.net/framing/)

Or you could do your own google search.

Framing, btw, is not effective if you know how it works and how to manipulate yourself around it.
Well, Vastiva ... it appears you suffer a bit from paranoia.

Better watch out -- I'm gonna get 'cha!

Sorry to be so hard on you, Kelssek, but we competent mental health practitioners sometimes need to make an example of the damagedly dysfunctional as a symptom-warning sign that others may use to recognize those same symptoms in themselves and seek treatment before their denial becomes pathological.

You? A psychiatrist? Dear Lord. I guess that thing about the shortage of doctors is true after all.

Oh well, Vastiva completely took down your response, so I'll have to satisfy myself with smacking your face with a salmon.

*smwack*

*I* am discussing science, and scientific proofs. Also legalities. You are framing your emotionalist arguements to manipulate.
Yes, you are indeed discussing science and legalities ... science and legalities at the expense of the lives of newly conceived unique individual living human beings ... and thus you stray from the point.

My arguments are not "emotionalist", Vastiva. My arguments orient from the beliefs of the human heart, beliefs common to all human hearts. There is no emotion eminating from the human heart, Vastiva ... but I can understand where you wouldn't realize that.

All of your arguments are mere mentalisms, and from the mind's brain-surface vantage point in the left cerebral hemisphere (in most westerners), any inward look from there will first encounter memory-and-emotion before true heart is ever found ... so I can understand from your extreme mentally centered perspective why you would mistake memory-and-emotion for heart.

Remember, the nature of the human psyche is my expertise, Vastiva, so you would do well to learn from the truth of my presentation to you here.

And the human heart doesn't manipulate, Vastiva -- it merely tells the truth ... and then watches the mentally centered twist with it.

The mind, on the other hand, and yours is a good example at the moment, is the master manipulator.


No, we're discussing clumps of cells with no legal rights.
Your mentally centered sophistry is flaring up again, Vastiva.

Your euphemism for newly conceived unique living individual human beings is quite manipulative.

I can see why it's important to your mind that newly conceived human beings have "no legal rights" -- that way you can holocaustically sacrifice them for whatever mad scientist purpose suits your fancy.


I'm discussing, you're manipulating with your italics.
Oooo -- better warn everyone, Chicken Little, I'm so "deviously manipulative" that I'm causing your very sky to fall.

That you find the straight truth devious speaks to the reality of your mind's twisted thinking.

Truly, anyone who follows your sophistry and paranoia on this U.N. resolution matter will be horrifically decieved ... by you.


*Yawn* Whatever. You cease to amuse me.
That you ever found me amusing is both sad ... and dishonest on your part.

You? A psychiatrist? Dear Lord. I guess that thing about the shortage of doctors is true after all.

Oh well, Vastiva completely took down your response, so I'll have to satisfy myself with smacking your face with a salmon.

*smwack*
The mentally centered do indeed stick together in the error of their ways, don't you, Kelssek.

I don't recall calling myself a "psychiatrist", do you, Kelssek? I thought not.

Better watch out for that tendency of yours to make an erroneous assumption, Kelssek -- I told the truth in my posts, whereas Vastiva spoke euphemistic sophistries based on emotional denial of reality, which hardly qualifies as anything of true value.

At least this one is aimed at me. Whoo hoo! I feel special.




*yawn*




"We're" not building anything. The creation of cell format is a function of DNA. "You" have nothing to do with it.




Attempt at emotional manipulation. Invalid.




If the "house" were "fully built at the moment of conception", it could get up and leave and walk around and vote. It can't.

The rest is emotionalist felgercarb.

Invalid.





By this arguement, a larger part is human, the smaller is not. This makes gametes and zygotes not human. Thank you for arguing my side.

Point mine.




I've past our three way test. Next question?




Life is choice and learning to choose. Do as you will, accept the consequences.

However, I - as an independant human being and "person", having passed our three way test - am defined as having rights and protection under law.

Clumps of cells have no rights.

So another invalid arguement.




Sure! So the "clump of cells" which is the mother has rights. The one which is currently not a person, not an individual human being, and is defined as having no rights, has no rights. That "person" does not exist for purposes of the law until they are an independant human being.




So that's how you do it! :p




False groupism, assumes conclusion, Invalid.




Invalid.




Not even worth the time to answer.




Emotional arguement, Invalid.




Insult, Invalid.




Yours never started.

:D
You do play the "debate games", don't you Vastiva.

Too bad you don't care about the truth as much as you do about playing games -- newly conceived unique living individual human beings would be a lot better off if you did.

No it isn't -- this matter isn't open to question at all.

I dunno, this thread and countless RL discussions would tend to suggest otherwise.

A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as DNA science and every heart knows.

DNA, still waiting on the percentages (Aliste?). Science? Which science, exactly? As for heart, I haven't seen an embryo in person myself. If I see one and go "awww, isn't he cute, he looks just like his dad when he was that age. Same mitochondria and everything." I'll conceed your point. For now it's debatable, IMHO.

Maybe in the minds of sophisters who conjur up denial-based false excuses to fuk-and-kill such is still "debatable", but not in the hearts of anyone is this a matter of conjecture ... and heart always overrules both memory-and-emotion and mind, especially dysfunctional mind.

And there are no dysfunctional hearts?

This matter has long been decided -- it is simply not at issue.

Decided by whom?

There is always something that a person gains from positing irrational and untrue sophistries,

What do I gain, pray tell?

something he wouldn't be able to derive if he simply told the straight truth of the matter.

Which is? As far as I can tell the only straight truth you proffer is "I feel an embryo is a human being." I'm open to any argument but I'm afraid yours is no more persuasive than someone telling me they feel that black people are inferior, that donating blood is wrong or that Britney Spears is genuinely talented.

So the question I must ask you is what value accrues to you from your minimalizing belittlement false definition-abuse of newly conceived individual living human beings -- what does this specious denial of reality buy you?

You assume I'm decided on this issue, I'm not. I'm open to any argument that will show why embryos are human life. You telling me how you feel isn't one of them.

Computer-minds that cannot discern human meaning are concerned only with whether something is "legal" or not. So, yes, it always does matter in the human heart about everything -- such as abortion, to which I am opposed except in direct self-defense of the mother's very life -- whether or not something is "legal".

My point is that until the day abortion is made illegal these foetuses are still killed, whether you like it or not. Using their cells to research potential cures for chronic illnesses does not, then, kill anything. I left the issue of morality alone, and for the record no, I certainly do not think that the fact that abortion is legal alone makes it morally right.

Nykibo was simply wrong about the compelling need to categorize these relevant human beings as "embryos that would have been killed anyway". As I pointed out a few posts ago, there is a healthy heart-centered solution to that issue which causes his quick-fix mental assumption that they are "doomed" either way to pale in comparison.

So the solution is not to find a "better" use of killing them, but to stop killing them for ANY reason!

What about those discarded from IVF?

One bad law-decision does not justify another.

I agree. I would probably not support Nykibo's argument. My point still stands, though, nothing is needlessly killed by this process if aborted and discarded IVF embryos are used. If you want to stop needless killing get rid of abortion, stopping cells being taken from aborted and/or discarded embryos will not save a single life.

Keep your heart -- it's permanent. U.N. resolutions are sometimes temporary -- they can always be overturned in light of new-and-improved information.

Information? How is information relevant? That sounds like science to me. I thought the heart was all that mattered.

While i have no problem with the principle behind this proposal, i have to say it is drafted appallingly. It is just so vague and unclear on many counts, including cost implications that supporting it is like saying 'research good, no research bad.'

My arguments are not "emotionalist", Vastiva. My arguments orient from the beliefs of the human heart, beliefs common to all human hearts.

As someone else said earlier, to make a statement like that displays that either you are completely ignorant or you are arrogant enough to believe that your beliefs, and yours alone, are right. You have your beliefs. I have mine. They are different.

All of your arguments are mere mentalisms, and from the mind's brain-surface vantage point in the left cerebral hemisphere (in most westerners), any inward look from there will first encounter memory-and-emotion before true heart is ever found ... so I can understand from your extreme mentally centered perspective why you would mistake memory-and-emotion for heart.

Remember, the nature of the human psyche is my expertise, Vastiva, so you would do well to learn from the truth of my presentation to you here.

Well hello Mister Pedantic.

There is no way in hell you are a doctor. No doctor, especially not one engaged in mental health, would act in such a condescending manner, and if I'm wrong here, please tell me where you work so I know which medical facility I should never visit. Are we supposed to be scared at your knowledge, assuming you didn't just dig that up from a book or the convenient Internet? You're proving nothing here except that you are an arrogant, conceited pedant.

And the human heart doesn't manipulate, Vastiva -- it merely tells the truth ... and then watches the mentally centered twist with it.

The mind, on the other hand, and yours is a good example at the moment, is the master manipulator.

Your mentally centered sophistry is flaring up again, Vastiva.

Your euphemism for newly conceived unique living individual human beings is quite manipulative.

Oooo -- better warn everyone, Chicken Little, I'm so "deviously manipulative" that I'm causing your very sky to fall.

That you find the straight truth devious speaks to the reality of your mind's twisted thinking.

Truly, anyone who follows your sophistry and paranoia on this U.N. resolution matter will be horrifically decieved ... by you.

That you ever found me amusing is both sad ... and dishonest on your part.

What I said.

You may be a psychiatrist, or you may not be. But either way, I think you need one.

I can see why it's important to your mind that newly conceived human beings have "no legal rights" -- that way you can holocaustically sacrifice them for whatever mad scientist purpose suits your fancy.

"Holocaustically"? Let's be careful in our choice of words here. "Holocaust" implies that he is for actively seeking out embryos and killing them. "Aha! An embryo! DIE, EMBRYO, DIE!!"

You earlier also wrongly asserted that all the embryos were intended to be implanted in women when in fact, stem cell labs usually form part of their supply by creating their own for the purpose of use in research. Thus they don't really have that much of a chance of being born. You are wrong to consider them as potential life, because one, they were created to be destroyed, two, if you artifically created an embryo in the same kind of conditions as in a stem cell lab and just left it for 9 months, you wouldn't get a baby. Even if you did implant it in a woman, as in in-vitro fertilisation, it would only have a 20% chance of implanting successfully and still has a high chance of miscarriage. Thus it has a chance of death of slightly more than 80%.

You want to make a big deal out of "they're individual human beings". Well, alright. Go find an embryo. Talk to it for a while and come back and report to me what its favourite food is and what kind of personality it has.

Do not characterise stem cell research as "mad scientist purpose". It is a medical therapy which has already shown success, and the full benefits of which could be reaped in the very near future. I also find it ironic that you claim to be a medical professional yet oppose a promising medical therapy that could cure many people. What happened to caring for your patients? Or maybe it's because you aren't really a doctor, hmm?

And while I wouldn't say that foetuses have absolutely no legal rights, they do have a different status in law. Here is a section from the Criminal Code in Canada.

"223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother...

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being."

You will note that for the purpose of prosecuting someone for murder, it only counts if the baby dies after it is born, and legally considered a human being. This doesn't mean that you don't have any legal rights at all before you've left your mother's womb, but it does illustrate the difference in status that the law provides for. This is Canadian law, of course, and doesn't apply worldwide, but the definition and concept should be similar in any country using an English law system, which includes quite a large portion of the world.

I don't recall calling myself a "psychiatrist", do you, Kelssek? I thought not.

...we competent mental health practitioners...

Okay, maybe "psychologist" might be the right word. But you sure have short-term memory loss.

Oh, and knock off those annoying italics.

True Heart, you seem to be implying one of two things.
No, Enn, I'm not -- the reality of my presentations are not as they seem to you.


1) Either everyone feels the same about everything - that everyone's 'heart' says the same thing.
Literally speaking, the heart does not feel -- the heart believes, and a belief of the heart is a truth of reality.

Every heart has two types of beliefs: 1) those beliefs that are common to all living human beings and are found in every heart, such as the "I AM" experience in general, and 2) those beliefs that are idiosyncratic to just that person, unique to that heart, such as the specific "I AM" experience that person experiences.


I don't see how that could be true.
It isn't true that everyone's heart says the "same" thing -- if every heart said the same thing, there'd be no unique human beings.

Though every heart shares beliefs that are the same and common to all human hearts, the idiosyncratic beliefs that, when summed-up for each heart, just by themselves, make every heart unique as an entity.

Imagine each heart like the genetic human code -- all humans share a common DNA coding that makes them alive and human, yet the sum of each individual's unique DNA code makes that individual a unique individual human being.

A person's common human beliefs and that person's idiosyncratic human beliefs are never in conflict.


People think and feel about things in different ways - that is the basis for individuality, far more than any genetic research could ever give. If we all felt the same about everything, then we would act the same. In effect, we would be automatons.
Indeed, we are in agreement that people do experience some things in different ways.

However, and this is the part that is relevant to this thread, people also do experience some things in the same way.

Again, let me reiterate that the heart doesn't feel.

The mind thinks, the heart believes, and the soul (the right side of our brain in most westerners, not some nebulous fantasy "spiritual essense" of ourself that supposedly lives on after we die) feels.


2) If that is not the case, then you mean that what you feel is better than what others feel, and that we should all conform to what you say.
No, I don't mean this at all either.

What I am saying is that we all unquestionably share exactly and in common the beliefs in our heart that have to do with being alive and being human, by virtue of the reality that we all are alive and human.

One of those common beliefs is the truth that we each began to live our life at the moment of our conception.

I am also saying that some people are not in touch with their heart, that they live from their mind, and not from their heart. These people, thereby, have an incomplete view of reality, and so their mind can mistake error of perception for truth and their mind can also be deceived by their ego-superego dualism to conjur up false assertions of reality by the mind itself. The euphemistic reference to a newly conceived individual living human being as "a clump of cells" to minimalizingly belittle that human being so as to "justify" killing that human being for the mind's gain, is an example of such an error of mind, an error that conflicts with that person's very heart.


Both of these are extremely insulting. So which is it?
I can understand that. Since I asserted neither of the two options you presented, then I did not insult anyone.

One of those common beliefs is the truth that we each began to live our life at the moment of our conception.

Do you know this is really quite a recent idea? Why do you think we all count our ages from our birth? Why do we all celebrate our birthdays and not our conceptiondays?

There is no consensus on that fact at all, and before we were able to understand the reproductive system, we didn't even know what conception was. You have some serious misconceptions here, no pun intended.

Do you know this is really quite a recent idea? Why do you think we all count our ages from our birth? Why do we all celebrate our birthdays and not our conceptiondays?

There is no consensus on that fact at all, and before we were able to understand the reproductive system, we didn't even know what conception was. You have some serious misconceptions here, no pun intended.
The human heart knows when it was created -- at the moment of conception -- and every human heart has known that throughout human history.

The human mind, which is limited in knowledge to that which it can sense, perceive and conceive about that which is outside of our self, has no capability of determing for itself the reality of conception, and has, historically, depended on our heart to get that ball of awareness rolling.

Historically, humanity has been mentally centered, not heart-centered, for reasons I may elaborate later.

In more recent times, situations have made it "safe" for people to leave their mind and journey inward back to their heart. There, they found the truth that resides in the heart. Included in that truth is the reality that unique individual human beings begin to live at the moment of conception.

Indeed, today the growing majority of people (in America according to polls) are aware that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

Now that DNA science has corroborated that reality from a scientific perspective, more and more people's minds are learning this truth, not just from their heart but through outside sources as well.

The human heart knows when it was created -- at the moment of conception -- and every human heart has known that throughout human history.

I asked mine when it was created, and it refuses to respond and just keeps going "ba-dump, ba-dump." But according to http://www.genefaith.org/ethgen/pages/databases/resources/humdevchart.html though, the human heart forms at around the 8th week of pregnancy. So you're wrong there.

Okay, I'm sorry for the sarcastic strawmanning, but things like that just invite it.

The human mind, which is limited in knowledge to that which it can sense, perceive and conceive about that which is outside of our self, has no capability of determing for itself the reality of conception, and has, historically, depended on our heart to get that ball of awareness rolling.

You really are insane. Hold it, wait... I've heard something like that somewhere before... Are you that guy who was on Oprah? You know... that guy?

In more recent times, situations have made it "safe" for people to leave their mind and journey inward back to their heart. There, they found the truth that resides in the heart. Included in that truth is the reality that unique individual human beings begin to live at the moment of conception.


You don't need to "find the truth that resides in the heart" or whatever other emotional idiotic bull you want to pull out of your ass. That life begins at conception is widely accepted as fact. But as of now, whether or not personality or uniqueness develops at the instant of conception is unknown as far as I know, and such debate is thus currently confined to philosophy. If you want to argue on those terms, I'm more than happy to switch to that. But do not attempt to present it as an unalterable fact, which it is not.

Why do we all celebrate our birthdays and not our conceptiondays?


Because then we'd start thinking about mum and dad...EEEWWWW!

I just want to say that although the debate is still beating around the general bush of the topic; it's gotten to be that people are concerning themselves with things other than it.

Also, people are taking analogies seriously; like the house example for instance. I do agree with that one actually. It went something like "That's like saying if you have wood, wire, concrete and (another material) you already have a house." You have to relate this to the topic at hand, not take it literally. In this case, it was relating it to the whole thing about sperm, eggs, and etc.
Anyway, it's the things like this that have taken me out of this debate; as well as the twisting of other peoples words. It seems that quote box has been used a few too many times to take just the small part people have a problem with, instead of the whole argument; making it seem more like the quoted person is incorrect by having the person doing the quoting only revealing small portions of information.
Not to mention...
Look here, I can type whatever I want into this little quote box, isn't that cool? And it's not hard either...


Anyway, I'd just like to ask that maybe people (even if only specific ones) could start trying to understand things instead of instantly passing them off as wrong/incorrect, and that the use of italics or any other such nonsense could perhaps be used a little less.... and I did read some of those comments, it was like every other word was italicized.


Anyway, continue on; I'm going to stop posting to these forums at all if stuff like that continues though; at which point both sides will lose my support.

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.

Human beings to be experimented on? Don't think so! Stem cell extraction is not life threatening! Not a swastika in sight! Suggest you look up stem cell research......

Switzerland just voted for stem cell research funding to be increased in a referendum this week!

As Nykibo mentioned, Stem Cell research is an amazing new breakthrough in the world of Science and treatment. Stem Cells have the abilility to heal many diseases including Cancer, Parkinsins, and Alzheimers. These 3 diseases alone have the power to tear apart families and wreck lives. Why would anyone want peoples lives to be wrecked by diseases so disasterous? Let's take a look at one thing. Young girls who get pregnant more times than none prove to be terrible mothers. They are incapable of taking care of another life. They find the only solution is to give the baby up. I would much rather see a baby's life go towards saving someone elses than having that child grow up and make all the wrong desicions. The point is, a child's life is affected by the environment the child is put in. I want my fellow members of the UN to think about that. What if your mother or father was dying of Cancer, or was being eaten away by Alzheimers? Could you bear the pain of having your own mother or father forget who you are? I know I would not be able to take it and stem cell research helps both parties out. It saves the child from a life of pain that could easily be waiting ahead, and it can also help families torn apart by horrid diseases. Think twice before voting against Stem Cell research. Thank you. - George Penney (Cortus)


Dear Cortus,

I appreciate your support of Stem Cell research, and I understand the arguement you made I disagree with the way you argued it. Currently stem cell resarch (although no longer in the US) was started with women who are artificially impregnated and the fetus aborted after 2 weeks. The women sign a waiver before they participate. Their medical history is known, what they do during those two weeks is carefully monitered. At around 2 weeks all that fetus is is a mass of multiplying cells it does not even begin to resemble a human until further along in its development. Although aborted babies could be used as a way to harvest stem cells, it doesn't seem like the most clean or scientifically sound method. Without the women being closely monited the scientist does not know what he or she is getting themselves into with these cells. What if the mother was on heroine when she got pregnant, didn't realize she was pregnant until 3 months later, and donates the fetus to science without telling them of her addiction and use during the pregnancy. The cells are dependant on heroine could die from withdral and could also be preminantly damaged. These are not fit for research. Not to mention it just doesn't seem right.

I support Stem Cell research completely, the posibilities are endless with the information it could provide. However, I cannot agree with the method you propose, it currently isn't being used for a very good reason and I think that should be considered in your argument. If you are looking for a better way to argue for Stem Cell research look around online the information is boundless. I hope I didn't seem to harsh but this is a subject i feel very strongly about and I'm glad to see other people supporting it as well.

-Queen of Soft Meeps

Oh, look! More trash to take out.

A member of the cloth? Where?! Where is this member of the cloth?! Where ... ... oh ... you mean "me".

Apparently, you don't know what a question is either.



Well, let me correct your erroneous assumption of rhetorical convenience, Vastiva.

Is that the new PC for "Answer Vastiva's question"? Gah, but it gets wordy.



I am not a member of the cloth. I'm not a minister, parson, rabbi, etc. Hell, I'm not even a practitioner of a religion. I'm not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, New Ager or anything religious in any way.

Well, that answers my question. Thank you.



I am an aeonic writer of obelisks. You will experience me as a competent mental health practitioner -- a counselor in the venacular.

No, I experience you as an emotionally manipulative writer with no logical arguements of any consequence whatsoever.



My particular expertise allows me to easily see the sophistries of denial conjured up in the minds of others. So thereby from your perspective, I suppose you might delude me to be a "member of the cloth", seeing how that trade is also practiced in the human psyche, though, of course, you would be in error ... and, once again, you are.

Gee, ask a question, you're "in error". Well, that too explains things. After all, if questioning is "making an error", then what is being called for is blind following.

Invalid, as you neglected to notice the "?" at the end of the phrase.



Heh heh! If I had a dime for every time a client of mine told me that revealing their articles of denial to their face was "twisting their words", I'd be a rich counselor today!

Or a cult leader, one of the two.



I realize that being exposed can be painful for you, Vastiva, but if you're like my clients and can eventually be honest, you'll come to thank me for it.


Ah, yes, back to the "I have parental authority therefore..." fallacy True Heart loves to use. This one calls for a conclusion on my part, with an attempt to state "but if you come to the Dark Side, Luke, things will be so much better for you."

Crap remains crap, regardless of how you frame it.



Translation: "to take my, Vastiva's, sophistries of self-deceit and equate them to".

*Yawn* Boring. I've seen this one before.



That's a fair figurative. Indeed, sophistries of self-deceit such as you have expressed in this thread are usually based in emotional dishonesty, which is wholely criminal to your self-esteem and your ability to speak the truth.

At the very least, you're consistantly amusing. Framed emotional manipulation, still invalid.

You'd think "True Heart" would find another method. But no, continue telling the same schpiel and hope someone believes it... *sigh*



For someone who doesn't care for rhetoric, you're quite good at creating it ... that and creating false assumptions, such as that I'm a "member of the cloth".

Yep, asking questions creates false assumptions. We should all believe what you say without questions.

Wait, that was Jim Jones' line. Sorry, got the two of you confused.



The advancement of science in and of itself has sometimes made the world a better place ... and sometimes not.

Newsflash - science is neutral. What you do with what is discovered makes all the difference in the world.



The constant creation of "better" WMDs is self-serving science run amuck that threatens to destroy the world. A destroyed world is not a better place.

Ah - but the MAD doctrine that emerged made war all but invalid. Methinks that was a long step in the right direction. Remove the rose colored glasses - what is is, its all about choice.



Science must be guilded to serve humanity, as science is merely a modern cousin of religion ... and I'm sure you know of the attrocities that have been committed in the name of religion run amuck ... just as you now advocate committing attrocities against newly conceived living individual human beings in the name of science.

And here we have the analogy of "SCIENCE = RELIGION". Wow. And you expect people to swallow that?



If you think science itself, ungoverned by the human heart, is intrinsically sufficient to make the world a better place, then you have self-servingly conveniently forgotten the lesson the rest of us remember about NAZI Germany.

Another "NAZI!" statement. Still invalid, emotional manipulation.



No, Vastiva -- how guilt-ridden you will "feel" when you finally come to consciousness and realize the Hitlerian holocaustic error of your "scientific" experiments.

Gotta love the emotional manipulation.... its so poorly done!



These lives, as you accurately reference them, would and could still be if your heart and not your mind was their advocate.

*yawn* You're boring your audience, augie.



I can bring you to consciousness anytime I wish ... so I wouldn't be too smug about it if I were you, as you would then painfully realize not only the error of your ways here, but the horror of your manipulative success in getting other self-deceived mentally centered to conspire holocaustically along with you.

Once more, True Heart claims to have "THE POWER OF TRUTH!". Yeah, that and three dollars gets you coffee at Starbucks. Next!



Trust me -- it won't be worth it to you ... and euphemistically looking "ridiculous" will be far from the suicidal depression that you will endure for your horrific killing after humanity soon reveals the prevention for these diseases -- prevention that does not require the sacrifice of the lives of newly conceived human beings. Really, Vastiva, I'd wait for the prevention, if I were you.

Fortunately, you're not. I like to do this thing called "Thinking for Myself". Yes, I know, not popular in your country, but the rest of us thought we'd try it out.



Me, on the other hand? I remain true to my heart, even while all about me may be losing theirs. It matters not whether I win or lose, but that I speak honest and true from my own heart about that which is common to all human hearts.

Well that's good, seeing as you already lost pages ago.

Amazing long death scene though. Very tragic.



Believe me, my "luck" will continue to improve.


"Once you're at the bottom, nowhere to go but up" - is that what you're saying? :rolleyes:



So do I ... just not the kind that requires killing human beings to conduct that research.

*yawn* Boring restatement of a known fallacy.

No points for this one, you're sounding like a broken record or scratched CD. And this line of drivel was old long before you started barfing it.

Well, Vastiva ... it appears you suffer a bit from paranoia.

Better watch out -- I'm gonna get 'cha!

:rolleyes:

Yes, you are indeed discussing science and legalities ... science and legalities at the expense of the lives of newly conceived unique individual living human beings ... and thus you stray from the point.


Hardly. First you need to prove your assumptions, of which you have proven none. Therefore, we are not going to pretend the unproven is true - and you have proven nothing. *snore* Oh, yes, I was replying to something.... I remember it was boring...



My arguments are not "emotionalist", Vastiva. My arguments orient from the beliefs of the human heart, beliefs common to all human hearts. There is no emotion eminating from the human heart, Vastiva ... but I can understand where you wouldn't realize that.

Do I really need to pick this one apart, or is it as glaringly obvious to everyone else as it is to me?

Methinks the latter.



All of your arguments are mere mentalisms, and from the mind's brain-surface vantage point in the left cerebral hemisphere (in most westerners), any inward look from there will first encounter memory-and-emotion before true heart is ever found ... so I can understand from your extreme mentally centered perspective why you would mistake memory-and-emotion for heart.

*yawn* still boring.



Remember, the nature of the human psyche is my expertise, Vastiva, so you would do well to learn from the truth of my presentation to you here.

Once again, the assumption of "TRUE HEART KNOWS THE TRUTH". By true heart. Whooopie! *yawn* You have anything else on this CD?



And the human heart doesn't manipulate, Vastiva -- it merely tells the truth ... and then watches the mentally centered twist with it.

Apparently not. And the "I'm being so cruelly treated" bit just looks stupid at this point.



The mind, on the other hand, and yours is a good example at the moment, is the master manipulator.

Just call me "Master". ;)

In case you missed it - that was sarcasm.



Your mentally centered sophistry is flaring up again, Vastiva.

Its that whole "Thinking for Yourself" thing that gets on your nerves, isn't it?



Your euphemism for newly conceived unique living individual human beings is quite manipulative.

*yawn* yep, I'm the one playing with text in all my posts. :rolleyes:



I can see why it's important to your mind that newly conceived human beings have "no legal rights" -- that way you can holocaustically sacrifice them for whatever mad scientist purpose suits your fancy.

Yet another "NAZI!" reference. Anyone else bored?



Oooo -- better warn everyone, Chicken Little, I'm so "deviously manipulative" that I'm causing your very sky to fall.

Actually, you're causing my eyes to droop. At least try to be entertaining.



That you find the straight truth devious speaks to the reality of your mind's twisted thinking.

Yet again, True heart claims to know "THE TRUTH!". Anyone not see that coming?



Truly, anyone who follows your sophistry and paranoia on this U.N. resolution matter will be horrifically decieved ... by you.

*yawn* Boring. I've been cast as the evil villian so often, I should get a discount on my black undies. :p



That you ever found me amusing is both sad ... and dishonest on your part.

Oh, no, quite honest. Trust me, I am in fact laughing at you. :p

Originally Posted by Vastiva
At least this one is aimed at me. Whoo hoo! I feel special.




*yawn*




"We're" not building anything. The creation of cell format is a function of DNA. "You" have nothing to do with it.




Attempt at emotional manipulation. Invalid.




If the "house" were "fully built at the moment of conception", it could get up and leave and walk around and vote. It can't.

The rest is emotionalist felgercarb.

Invalid.





By this arguement, a larger part is human, the smaller is not. This makes gametes and zygotes not human. Thank you for arguing my side.

Point mine.




I've past our three way test. Next question?




Life is choice and learning to choose. Do as you will, accept the consequences.

However, I - as an independant human being and "person", having passed our three way test - am defined as having rights and protection under law.

Clumps of cells have no rights.

So another invalid arguement.




Sure! So the "clump of cells" which is the mother has rights. The one which is currently not a person, not an individual human being, and is defined as having no rights, has no rights. That "person" does not exist for purposes of the law until they are an independant human being.




So that's how you do it!




False groupism, assumes conclusion, Invalid.




Invalid.




Not even worth the time to answer.




Emotional arguement, Invalid.




Insult, Invalid.




Yours never started.

:D


You do play the "debate games", don't you Vastiva.

Too bad you don't care about the truth as much as you do about playing games -- newly conceived unique living individual human beings would be a lot better off if you did.


You'll note - not one reply to any of the rebuttals, just a ridiculous statement at the end - in which yet again unsupported assumptions are supposed to be taken as "THE TRUTH!!!!".

Anyone for a game of pinochle?

No, Enn, I'm not -- the reality of my presentations are not as they seem to you.

So, they're not boring, overlong, and punctuated with italics?



Literally speaking, the heart does not feel -- the heart believes, and a belief of the heart is a truth of reality.

"Literally speaking" the heart is a pump.



Every heart has two types of beliefs: 1) those beliefs that are common to all living human beings and are found in every heart, such as the "I AM" experience in general, and 2) those beliefs that are idiosyncratic to just that person, unique to that heart, such as the specific "I AM" experience that person experiences.

Heart = Pump for blood.

Still boring.



It isn't true that everyone's heart says the "same" thing -- if every heart said the same thing, there'd be no unique human beings.

If your heart talks to you, I'd suggest psychotherapy and treatment for schitzophrenia.



Though every heart shares beliefs that are the same and common to all human hearts, the idiosyncratic beliefs that, when summed-up for each heart, just by themselves, make every heart unique as an entity.

Heart = Pump.



Imagine each heart like the genetic human code -- all humans share a common DNA coding that makes them alive and human, yet the sum of each individual's unique DNA code makes that individual a unique individual human being.

Ah, DNA coding makes me alive. Cool. Wait, what about all those dead lumps that have human DNA?

Still silly.



A person's common human beliefs and that person's idiosyncratic human beliefs are never in conflict.

ROFL!



Indeed, we are in agreement that people do experience some things in different ways.

Duh. It is physically impossible for you to experience *anything* the way I do.



However, and this is the part that is relevant to this thread, people also do experience some things in the same way.

Name one.



Again, let me reiterate that the heart doesn't feel.

FINALLY! ... no, wait, the heart responds to changes in the ph of the blood as well as various neural messages... so I guess technically you're still wrong.

Oh well. Better luck later.



The mind thinks, the heart believes, and the soul (the right side of our brain in most westerners, not some nebulous fantasy "spiritual essense" of ourself that supposedly lives on after we die) feels.

Wow. True Heart - and the "Weekly World News", that epitome of journalistic integrity - have located the soul! And its on the right side of our brain! Neat!



No, I don't mean this at all either.

*sigh* Doesn't even know what she means. Pathetic.



What I am saying is that we all unquestionably share exactly and in common the beliefs in our heart that have to do with being alive and being human, by virtue of the reality that we all are alive and human.

Invalid, calls for conclusion.



One of those common beliefs is the truth that we each began to live our life at the moment of our conception.

I don't belive that. Ergo, you're again wrong.

Is this getting repetitive for anyone else?



I am also saying that some people are not in touch with their heart, that they live from their mind, and not from their heart. These people, thereby, have an incomplete view of reality, and so their mind can mistake error of perception for truth and their mind can also be deceived by their ego-superego dualism to conjur up false assertions of reality by the mind itself. The euphemistic reference to a newly conceived individual living human being as "a clump of cells" to minimalizingly belittle that human being so as to "justify" killing that human being for the mind's gain, is an example of such an error of mind, an error that conflicts with that person's very heart.

First, If I'm touching my heart, call a paramedic, there's a hole in my chest.

The rest is just rubbish and rhetoric.



I can understand that. Since I asserted neither of the two options you presented, then I did not insult anyone.

Nope, just bored.

The human heart knows when it was created -- at the moment of conception -- and every human heart has known that throughout human history.

*makes note* "Failed Biology 101".



The human mind, which is limited in knowledge to that which it can sense, perceive and conceive about that which is outside of our self, has no capability of determing for itself the reality of conception, and has, historically, depended on our heart to get that ball of awareness rolling.

Yep, that whole "abstract thought" thing was just a passing fad. What time is it?

*adds another F to True Heart's report card*



Historically, humanity has been mentally centered, not heart-centered, for reasons I may elaborate later.

I can hardly wai.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz




In more recent times, situations have made it "safe" for people to leave their mind and journey inward back to their heart. There, they found the truth that resides in the heart. Included in that truth is the reality that unique individual human beings begin to live at the moment of conception.

The complete lack of consistancy and logic in your posts has made it necessary to create a scorecard and chart.

I hope you're happy with yourself.



Indeed, today the growing majority of people (in America according to polls) are aware that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

that was such a sad statement, I'll leave it alone. It'll die of embarrasment in a minute or three.



Now that DNA science has corroborated that reality from a scientific perspective, more and more people's minds are learning this truth, not just from their heart but through outside sources as well.

Documentation? None? Figured.

True Heart:

I must admit I was mistaken.
I assumed that when you were talking about the 'heart', I thought you meant the heart as the seat of emotion. After all, that is the standard idiomatic representation of the heart, going back at least a few centuries.

But I was wrong. When you have said the word 'heart', you have been talking about something completely different. As to what that is, I simply haven't a clue. Could you please elaborate on what on Earth you mean when you say the word heart?

Could you please elaborate on what on Earth you mean when you say the word heart?
Enn, Enn, Enn ... you know better. Can we not, and just pretend that we did? Or create a new topic somewhere called "Pretentious emotionally-based crap from a UN troll? Trolls don't have hearts anyway, do they?


Anyway, this resolution passed. Let's let the topic die.

Aw, but I like feeding the troll!

Seriously, though, I am interested in what True Heart was meaning when he used the word 'heart', as distinct to either a pump or the centre of emotion.

OOC:
I'm going to make this short and simple.


the "HUMAN HEART" Does not know anything. It is an organ that's sole purpose is to pump blood from one part of the body to the other. The Heart does not have memory, it does not have anything that can make it "remember" shit.

The "BRAIN", or Nervious Center, of the body has all knoledge. It holds the "memories" of what our bodies do, when the body does a particular thing, and how often the body does that thing.

Most Modern Stem Cell Research doesn't use dead babies. There is work being done at a multiple of universities where they are using Alive Babies and extracting stem cells to use for research. Those babies are then born, healthy i might add, and have no medical conditions. If they are born with medical conditions, it's the fault of the doctor that performs the delivery. So don't come crying to us saying that Stem Cell Research kills babies.

Without Stem Cell Research where would we be today? We've cured a few major illnesses using Stem Cell Research. And over 95% of the babies who are used for stem cell research that are dead before the research are from abortions and or miscarrages.

Shazbotdom, there's no need to gravedig week-old topics to poke at the idiocy of True Heart's remarks. You'll just set him off again. If you want to pick on more of the same, take it to the National Sovriengty and Abortion Rights repeal (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377743) topic. That one at least has the virtue of being relatively current.