NationStates Jolt Archive

I just want to know ppls thoughts on this topic, and how people can be against a technology that will one day cure diseases, such as Diabetes, Para/Quadraplegics (not a disease but could be cured) based on a belief in god. or that it is destroying a 'life'

What god would want people to suffer because curing them involves research on an embryo which is being "thrown in the bin"* anyway

* i dont know if its actually a "bin" but they are destroyed.

Don't ask me how people can be against something so promising. I, for one, support it completely.

full support here. Massachusets (where I'm in school, but don't live) is in the process of passing a new law to make it easier for the research to occur in the state

full support here. Massachusets (where I'm in school, but don't live) is in the process of passing a new law to make it easier for the research to occur in the state

Hail Massachusetts!

It's a matter of bringing church into state. Their number one argument is that "The soul is created when the sperm and the egg combine" but that is a religious belief. I think stem cell research is a great idea and should be allowed.

It's a matter of bringing church into state. Their number one argument is that "The soul is created when the sperm and the egg combine" but that is a religious belief. I think stem cell research is a great idea and should be allowed.

Same here. However, I find it funny that these hard-liner Republicans press for separation of Church and State, yet they let their religious beliefs influence their opinions and decisions. Hypocrites.

Don't ask me how people can be against something so promising. I, for one, support it completely.
I'm going to assume you're ignorant of this so let me enlighten you. Stem cells can be found in THE IMBELICAL CORD. So there's no need to kill babies for them, or mutilate those already dead's bodies like some kind of mad scientist.

If otherwise you still support it you're just a stubborn liberal who wants to piss off the conservatives. Instead of killing babies why can't you just be a parenting father or burn a bra like your grandparents did? Tool..

I personally believe in letting personally/religious beliefs influence your decisions, but it has to be tempered by common sense.

i.e. Having religious reservations about a certain bill, but passing it b/c it could help others.

I also support stem-cell research, and believe it will yield great things. I could be wrong, but I sincerely believe it deserves funding and support.

As far as stem cells from embryos vs. stem cells from other sources, I'd like to hear from an M.D. or biochemist on the technical differences

full support here. Massachusets (where I'm in school, but don't live) is in the process of passing a new law to make it easier for the research to occur in the state

Rumor has it that your governor will veto it. =(

I'm going to assume you're ignorant of this so let me enlighten you. Stem cells can be found in THE IMBELICAL CORD. So there's no need to kill babies for them, or mutilate those already dead's bodies like some kind of mad scientist.

I'm going to assume you are ignorant of this so let me enlighten you. Umbilical cord stem cells are a different type of cell than embryonic stem cells, with very different potential. Confusing the two demonstrates that you have not done much research into the matter.

And who said anything about killing babies? We are talking about blastocysts here.

Why is ALL stem cell research banned even if the umbilical cord stem cells are still viable?

And, for the babies who are already being aborted (and eliminating abortion through law is going to increase UNsafe abortion--think prohibition), why not use them too?

Abortion is a horrible thing, yes, but if it is happening, we must acknowledge that it IS happening and that ALL is not lost. Someone else who is ALREADY living, suffering even, can use the stem cells.

I'm going to assume you're ignorant of this so let me enlighten you. Stem cells can be found in THE IMBELICAL CORD. So there's no need to kill babies for them, or mutilate those already dead's bodies like some kind of mad scientist.

...What the hell? Of course I knew you could harvest the cells from the umbilical cord. However, those cells are much weaker than those harvested from the embryos themselves. And, we're harvesting them from embryos. So what?

If otherwise you still support it you're just a stubborn liberal who wants to piss off the conservatives. Instead of killing babies why can't you just be a parenting father or burn a bra like your grandparents did? Tool..

Still pissy about the Atkins Diet, are we? Nice passive flaming there, guy.

Abortion is a horrible thing, yes, but if it is happening, we must acknowledge that it IS happening and that ALL is not lost. Someone else who is ALREADY living, suffering even, can use the stem cells.
I actually had a good plan and it would allow both sides to be happy.

Abortion is still legal, stem-cell research can be taken on babies if they want thier dead baby to be.. HOWEVER..

they must have the abortion in a back alley with a clotheshanger.

http://www.planetnintendo.com/ff1/characters/fight/bmhurt.gif
Let's see how quick women are to open up thier legs then..

Oh and don't give me that rape victim shit because rape is a crime of violance not one of sex. Very rarely do women get pregnant that way.

And if the woman does take responsibility but the man does not the man has his dick chopped off.

There's your fair and balanced FOX.

I'm going to assume you're ignorant of this so let me enlighten you. Stem cells can be found in THE IMBELICAL CORD. So there's no need to kill babies for them, or mutilate those already dead's bodies like some kind of mad scientist.

The cells obtained from umbilical cords are not as numerous as those found from embryos

No "baby killing" is used in research involving stem cells when a couple undergo IVF there are usually remaining embryos these are taken and made to multiply and used in research in curing disease.
if they are not used for this purpose they are destroyed

If they are going to die why not use them to make someones life easier.

Obviously you have never experienced pain or an illness that cannot be cured and degrades your quality of life, gives you risk of hospitliasion in hours and will eventually result in blindess, kidney failure, limb amputations, heart disease and numerous other conditions.
I have had to live with diabetes 4 7 years stem cells are one avenue that could change all that, it freaks, like you that are preventing it from happening

i hope that you contract some horrible disease, that cant be cured so that you see the folly of your beliefs

-snip-

Not a Conservative, eh? Looks like we've got another one, guys...

*walks away, shaking his head*

i hope that you contract some horrible disease, that cant be cured so that you see the folly of your beliefs

Hahahahaaahahahaa. My sentiments, exactly!

Why is ALL stem cell research banned even if the umbilical cord stem cells are still viable?

All stem cell research is not banned. In fact, in the US, none is banned. There are, however, debilitating restrictions on what money is provided for embryonic stem cell research.

And, for the babies who are already being aborted (and eliminating abortion through law is going to increase UNsafe abortion--think prohibition), why not use them too?

For one, because they are well beyond the stage at which we can get embryonic stem cells. For another, because the tissues are usually too damaged.

Do not mistake embryonic stem cell research with abortion. The two are not linked in any way.

Not a Conservative, eh? Looks like we've got another one, guys...

*walks away, shaking his head*
Oh yes, cause I think for myself and don't follow blindly what some moron tells me too..

I'm such a fucking conservative and yet I think the minute men are disgusting.
I'm such a God-damn republican and yet I agree the war with Iraq is some secret scheme by Bush but I'm just not fully aware what that scheme is. (He's the fricking president, what do I look like? Bond?)
I'm so gosh darn right-wing that I think gay marriage should be legal, think sodomy kicks ass, and laugh at thier fear of affirmative action.

But because I think for myself and put my morals and good judgment before my pride I'm a conservative.
Thankyou, you have just confirmed my belief that all conservatives are scheming tyrants looking to control us, and liberals are fucking retarded.

I actually had a good plan and it would allow both sides to be happy.

Abortion is still legal, stem-cell research can be taken on babies if they want thier dead baby to be.. HOWEVER..

they must have the abortion in a back alley with a clotheshanger.

http://www.planetnintendo.com/ff1/characters/fight/bmhurt.gif
Let's see how quick women are to open up thier legs then..

Oh and don't give me that rape victim shit because rape is a crime of violance not one of sex. Very rarely do women get pregnant that way.

And if the woman does take responsibility but the man does not the man has his dick chopped off.

There's your fair and balanced FOX.


Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with stem cell research.

Oh yes, cause I think for myself and don't follow blindly what some moron tells me too..

And yet you make an opinion based on what some moron tells you, instead of the actual facts. Yeah, that's really thinking for yourself. Generally, thinking for yourself requires a little research into the matter.

Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with stem cell research.
Oh noooo, the fact that you need a dead baby has no connection what so ever to an abortion. How silly of me!

-_ -

Commit suicide, you've failed as a human being. Reincarnate as something less demanding of complicated brain patterns, like a seahorse.

Oh yes, cause I think for myself and don't follow blindly what some moron tells me too..

Ah, I get it. I'm "following what some moron tells me" because I'm extremely far-left on the Political Compass. Gatcha.

I'm such a fucking conservative and yet I think the minute men are disgusting.

Yo. Ease up.

I'm such a God-damn republican and yet I agree the war with Iraq is some secret scheme by Bush but I'm just not fully aware what that scheme is. (He's the fricking president, what do I look like? Bond?)
I'm so gosh darn right-wing that I think gay marriage should be legal, think sodomy kicks ass, and laugh at thier fear of affirmative action.

Yo. You're starting to sound like a hell of a hypocrite.

But because I think for myself and put my morals and good judgment before my pride I'm a conservative.
Thankyou, you have just confirmed my belief that all conservatives are scheming tyrants looking to control us, and liberals are fucking retarded.

YO. Didn't I say ease up? Ehh, it's impossible to get through to posers, 'innit?

Oh noooo, the fact that you need a dead baby has no connection what so ever to an abortion. How silly of me!

-_ -

Commit suicide, you've failed as a human being. Reincarnate as something less demanding of complicated brain patterns, like a seahorse.

Wow. Dead baby, huh? So, a minute puddle of slop is a baby, now, is it?

Commit suicide, you've failed as a human being. Reincarnate as something less demanding of complicated brain patterns, like a seahorse.

Just so I understand, this is clearly flaming, yes?

Wow. Dead baby, huh? So, a minute puddle of slop is a baby, now, is it?


Hear Hear !!!!!!

my thoughts exactly

altho abortion is not the only way to obtaian embryos, left over ones from IVF work also, no baby dies, and in fact a new one is created and someone gets a better life, everyone wins!!!!

Oh noooo, the fact that you need a dead baby has no connection what so ever to an abortion. How silly of me!

Blastocyst != baby

And fetal tissue from abortions cannot and is not used to obtaint embryonic stem cells. As such, the two have nothing to do with each other.

Hear Hear !!!!!!

my thoughts exactly

altho abortion is not the only way to obtaian embryos, left over ones from IVF work also, no baby dies, and in fact a new one is created and someone gets a better life, everyone wins!!!!

Abortion is not a way to obtain emrbyos for embryonic stem cell research at all. As I said, the two are completely unrelated. All of the lines we currently have come from IVF clinic materials. The Koreans have a single line derived from nuclear cell transfer (therapeutic cloning).

Blastocyst != baby

And fetal tissue from abortions cannot and is not used to obtaint embryonic stem cells. As such, the two have nothing to do with each other.

Semantics, and PC terminology to support your arguement. Everyone currently debating on this forum was once a blastocyst:

Blastocyst (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/blastocyst.html)

A blastocyst is merely the most immature form of human - in other words, the tiniest baby. When you kill a blastocyst, you kill a potential human.

The abortion debate basically boils down to whether you believe a baby, at any stage before birth, is worthy of the same rights and protections as those of us outside the womb.

Semantics, and PC terminology to support your arguement. Everyone currently debating on this forum was once a blastocyst:

Irrelevant.

The abortion debate basically boils down to whether you believe a baby, at any stage before birth, is worthy of the same rights and protections as those of us outside the womb.

Which doesn't change the fact that abortion is not a source of tissue for embryonic stem cell research. If you are really so opposed, start protesting IVF.

you people who keep going on with abortion must not understand what stem cells are. They are NOT a little baby they are cells wich are not yest specialised but will later do so, becoming bone cells, brain cells etc

With a little manipulation you can create the cells you want, you could make nerve cells for instance, grow them to the required shape length etc insert them into a para/quadraplegics back bone, and HOLY COW i just made some guy walk

i wonder what else i can do........

OH WONDERFUL! LET'S CLONE PEOPLE! -_ -

Before I get into the realistic severities of cloning watch Star Wars Episode 2.

Then after that watch alot of 70s movies.

Then if you're still not convinced seeing as any thoughts you have was tottaly drilled into that thick skull of your's by the media, let me tell you what will happen if you start cloning.

Iddenity theft and radical court judiciary.

Your clone could take your credit card and buy a new car, but how would they ever be able to tell it was YOU? And besides, i bet a good amount of money the liberals of tommorow will use the excuse "Well i'm his clone! I'm him too! It's my right!"

And what about if they commit murder hmm? You don't think you got away with it do you? What? You said your clone did it? But the dna came back as your's and oh yeah--A CLONE! Well now we have no way to prove it so i guess will just put both your asses in jail just to be on the safe side!

"I shouldn't have to pay for my clone's mistake! Make murder legal!"

And then you all kill eachother like the dumb shits you are. Aliens drink shampaighn up in space and yell "BRILLIANT!" And balance is restored to the force. *Enter Star Wars theme here*

OH WONDERFUL! LET'S CLONE PEOPLE! -_ -

WOT THE F*** where did cloning come from

were talking about replicating more stem cells NOT cloning whole F***ing people you moron what drugs are you on?????

Irrelevant.



Which doesn't change the fact that abortion is not a source of tissue for embryonic stem cell research. If you are really so opposed, start protesting IVF.
Killing a blastocyst = killing a baby = abortion.

And yes, I am against IVF for the very reason that it creates potential humans that are then stored or thrown away or killed in research labs.

Killing a blastocyst = killing a baby = abortion.

Incorrect. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. As such, embryonic stem cell reserach does not apply.

Irrelevant.



Which doesn't change the fact that abortion is not a source of tissue for embryonic stem cell research. If you are really so opposed, start protesting IVF.

Only irrelevant if you aren't the blastocyst being terminated or researched or whatever.

WOT THE F*** where did cloning come from

were talking about replicating more stem cells NOT cloning whole F***ing people you moron what drugs are you on?????
Cause I know how you idiots think.

Parts wont be enough. You'll want the "right" to clone yourself.

Now go back and read my last post bitch. *Plays more Star Wars theme*

OH WONDERFUL! LET'S CLONE PEOPLE! -_ -

Before I get into the realistic severities of cloning watch Star Wars Episode 2.

Then after that watch alot of 70s movies.

Then if you're still not convinced seeing as any thoughts you have was tottaly drilled into that thick skull of your's by the media, let me tell you what will happen if you start cloning.

Iddenity theft and radical court judiciary.

Your clone could take your credit card and buy a new car, but how would they ever be able to tell it was YOU? And besides, i bet a good amount of money the liberals of tommorow will use the excuse "Well i'm his clone! I'm him too! It's my right!"

And what about if they commit murder hmm? You don't think you got away with it do you? What? You said your clone did it? But the dna came back as your's and oh yeah--A CLONE! Well now we have no way to prove it so i guess will just put both your asses in jail just to be on the safe side!

"I shouldn't have to pay for my clone's mistake! Make murder legal!"

And then you all kill eachother like the dumb shits you are. Aliens drink shampaighn up in space and yell "BRILLIANT!" And balance is restored to the force. *Enter Star Wars theme here*

Do you enjoy acting like an infant?

Well hell, I'm just going to throw in on this one 'cause I was reading it and, well... whatever.

Stem cell research holds tremendous promise. The cells used don't even have the potential to become a life, as they would never be carried to term in a woman's womb. Since there's no way these cells could ever become a person, the arguments against stem cell research are completely insubstantial, unfounded, and ignorant. Everyone has the right to whatever religious beliefs they choose, but for god's sake (no pun intended) don't get all preachy about it. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can stand in the way of science when we know that this science is the only way we're ever going to discover cures and remedies for countless afflictions that kill millions. Of course, one might say that our planet could use a couple billion less people right now (since we're not going to be learning to share any time soon), but that's a different topic for a different time.

PS: By the way, I love how the term "liberal" as been demonified by the American/corporate/Republican media... up here in Canada, the Liberal Party runs the place... and our most conservative political party is less conservative than your Democrats. Funny world we live in.

Incorrect. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. As such, embryonic stem cell reserach does not apply.

From Dictionary.com:
a·bor·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-bôrshn)
n.

1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
3. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
4. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
5. An aborted organism.
Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

Definitions 4 and 5 apply. Even to embryonic stem cell research.

Only irrelevant if you aren't the blastocyst being terminated or researched or whatever.

No, irrelevant in that case as well - as a group of cells has no ability to worry about it, or even be aware of it.

all you people against stem cells answer me this:

have you had to live nearly half your life knowing that a single mistake in calculating your medication, or missing a meal could land you in hospital, or know that by the time you reach your forties, you'll be almost blind, have limbs amputated, kidneys failing, and dying of heart attack

or even worse, do you have to live knowing you can t even move because you have a broken neck

if no then i hope that when you get your stupid arse off your computer you fall down and break your neck
i wonder if your views would change somewhat......

From Dictionary.com:
a·bor·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-bôrshn)
n.

1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
3. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
4. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
5. An aborted organism.
Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

Definitions 4 and 5 apply. Even to embryonic stem cell research.

Incorrect. Only 4 could even be twisted to apply, although there is no "normal growth" associated here, as there is no chance of the emrbyo maturing. Of course, abortion in the sense which you were using it is only applicable in definitions 1-3, none of which applies in this case.

No, irrelevant in that case as well - as a group of cells has no ability to worry about it, or even be aware of it.
Neither do the eggs of endangered bird species, but the EPA protects them. Why do we protect them? Perhaps because we value life and the species.

are you also against the use of antibiotics because

OMG!!!!!!! were killingn life NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Neither do the eggs of endangered bird species, but the EPA protects them. Why do we protect them? Perhaps because we value life and the species.

Non sequitur. The species is endangered. It has nothing to do with valuing life, but is placing a value on the potential of life. Of course, this has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research, since there is no potential for life.

Incorrect. Only 4 could even be twisted to apply, although there is no "normal growth" associated here, as there is no chance of the emrbyo maturing. Of course, abortion in the sense which you were using it is only applicable in definitions 1-3, none of which applies in this case.
Apparently there is a chance of the embryo maturing or growing, else why do the research?

The sense in which I was using it was the termination of the life of the blastocyst/potential human. Which would include cessation of growth (4), and aborting of an organism (5).

You try to frame my use of the term abortion to fit your political view.

Neither do the eggs of endangered bird species, but the EPA protects them. Why do we protect them? Perhaps because we value life and the species.


maybe because they need protecting and have a chance of survival (however small)

what you dont understand is that the cells used in research have NO chance of survival because they get destroyed if f***ing dying anyway why not make use of it???????

do you now understand?????
d o y o u w is h m e t o r e p e a t m o r e s l o w l y ?

Hey, here's a crazy idea... take religion completely out of it. In the long run, we're just a bunch of insignificant carbon-based organisms floating around on our spec of rock in an unimaginably massive universe. So what if we manipulate cells? It'll happen eventually, so why not just go with it now? that's the thing I never understood about the conservative movement. Society always moves FOREWARD. What is "liberal" today will be the "conservative" of the next century...

Non sequitur. The species is endangered. It has nothing to do with valuing life, but is placing a value on the potential of life. Of course, this has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research, since there is no potential for life.
If they have no potential for life, then what the heck are we doing with them?
A blastocyst has no potential for life? Since when?

Apparently there is a chance of the embryo maturing or growing, else why do the research?

We do research with the cells, not with the embryo. Without implantation, there is no chance that the embryo will continue to grow or mature.

The sense in which I was using it was the termination of the life of the blastocyst/potential human. Which would include cessation of growth (4), and aborting of an organism (5).

Technically, the embryo would not yet be defined as an organism.

If they have no potential for life, then what the heck are we doing with them?
A blastocyst has no potential for life? Since when?

Since it is not going to be implanted into a uterus.

all you people against stem cells answer me this:

have you had to live nearly half your life knowing that a single mistake in calculating your medication, or missing a meal could land you in hospital, or know that by the time you reach your forties, you'll be almost blind, have limbs amputated, kidneys failing, and dying of heart attack

or even worse, do you have to live knowing you can t even move because you have a broken neck

if no then i hope that when you get your stupid arse off your computer you fall down and break your neck
i wonder if your views would change somewhat......
Oh like you really care. Your the fuckers that starved a woman to death. You don't think of people as people, you think of them as cattle for your little expirmenets. Fuck you, don't touch me and stay away from me. I don't want to be used for any of your peverse "scientific breakthroughs"..

maybe because they need protecting and have a chance of survival (however small)

what you dont understand is that the cells used in research have NO chance of survival because they get destroyed if f***ing dying anyway why not make use of it???????

do you now understand?????
d o y o u w is h m e t o r e p e a t m o r e s l o w l y ?
Could you be a little more condescending?

One of the reasons I enjoy these forums is that, for the most part, people can freely debate different points of views. Your crassness diminishes that spirit.

Why do these cells have no chance of survival? They were created in the first place to create life via IVF. Technology could, and may have already been, developed to reimplant these eggs to grow to full maturity.

Or that's at least as likely as the potential benefits of stem cell research, none of which have been proven to any degree.

Hey Selgin! What don't you understand? These blastocysts CANNOT BECOME PEOPLE because they're NOT GOING TO BE CARRIED TO TERM in a woman's womb. They're just a bunch of cells that are going to be destroyed anyway, so why not do some LIFE SAVING REASEARCH before they go? For someone who claims to value life so much, you're sure sure sounding awefully hypocritical. Since when is a pile of cells more important than the life of a human being?

Oh like you really care. Your the fuckers that starved a woman to death.

You mean the woman who didn't want that existance in the first place?

I don't want to be used for any of your peverse "scientific breakthroughs"..

If science bothers you, feel free to step away from your computer, take off all of your clothes, and go find a cave to live in.

Since it is not going to be implanted into a uterus.
So you define the potential for life by whether it is decided to implant it in a uterus or not?

If implanted in a uterus, it could develop into a human being. Therefore, there is potential for life. Just because someone decides not to do that does not diminish that potential.

Hey Selgin! What don't you understand? These blastocysts CANNOT BECOME PEOPLE because they're NOT GOING TO BE CARRIED TO TERM in a woman's womb. They're just a bunch of cells that are going to be destroyed anyway, so why not do some LIFE SAVING REASEARCH before they go? For someone who claims to value life so much, you're sure sure sounding awefully hypocritical. Since when is a pile of cells more important than the life of a human being?
How am I being hypocritical - hypocrisy meaning stating a particular position, while actions indicate an opposite position.

Why is the life of a diseased person more important than a baby's life?

Oh like you really care. Your the fuckers that starved a woman to death. You don't think of people as people, you think of them as cattle for your little expirmenets. Fuck you, don't touch me and stay away from me. I don't want to be used for any of your peverse "scientific breakthroughs"..

actually "we" didnt starve a woman to death that was the americans, i am a true blue fair dinkum Aussie and damn proud of it

BTW please refrain from swearing all the time because some people are offended by it, not me but some are.

i find it hard to belive that you would prefer to die a slow miserable death unable to even pee your self than being able to lead a normal life with stem cell research

So you define the potential for life by whether it is decided to implant it in a uterus or not?

If it is not in a uterus, there is no potential.

Meanwhile, even if it were placed inside a woman, the chance that it would become a life is very, very small.

Why is the life of a diseased person more important than a baby's life?

It is only a baby in your very subjective opinion.

Um.. I'm not talking about a dead person, I'm talking about the millions of (real) people who's lives could be saved by this research.

If science bothers you, feel free to step away from your computer, take off all of your clothes, and go find a cave to live in.

Good Call
maybe there should be a new law, all those freaks that are against scientific advancement, should be banished to live in a cave and hunt woolly mammoths.......

BTW please refrain from swearing all the time because some people are offended by it, not me but some are.

You might start with yourself on the swearing issue:

what you dont understand is that the cells used in research have NO chance of survival because they get destroyed if f***ing dying anyway why not make use of it???????

Um.. I'm not talking about a dead person, I'm talking about the millions of (real) people who's lives could be saved by this research.
I'm not even going to go there. Arguing with you is pointless. You know as well as I do neither one of us is going to change are chances so just agree to disagree with me and save us both alot of typing.

I'm just tapping my foot. Kim Jong said he was going to make our country rain of nuclear warheads. Where are these warheads?! I know North Koriea has a differant time-zone but sheeeesh...

Oh, and by the way...
Terry Shaivo got herself into her little mess... her stroke was brought on by her starving herslef. Also, don't you think it would've been a little more humane to just give her a lethal injection instead of letting her starve to death? I mean, she's gonna die anyway right? So why make her suffer?

If it is not in a uterus, there is no potential.

Meanwhile, even if it were placed inside a woman, the chance that it would become a life is very, very small.



It is only a baby in your very subjective opinion.
Ah, but the fact that such a thing as a uterus exists means the potential exists for implanting the blastocyst. Which means the potential for life exists as well.

And you are right, it is only a baby in my very subjective opinion. As is yours.

As I understand it, once the blastocysts become viable to be harvested for stem cells its too late for them to be implanted into the uterus. I personally believe that the research has great potential, and in the end it is an avenue that science must travel down at one point. However, the both sides have a flawed arguement.

I am a proponent of limited gov. especially when it comes to the economy, but this is a time when the government must put its foot down.

A highly regulated and government funded reasearch grant would do the trick, but both sides must come to an agreement first. It is useless to sit here are argue about it.

Each side must make a consession or two...

There. I've given my 2 cents.

Please resume the yelling.

I'm not even going to go there. Arguing with you is pointless. You know as well as I do neither one of us is going to change are chances so just agree to disagree with me and save us both alot of typing.


And there you have it! This is pretty much as pointless as arguing creationism vs evolutionism...

Good Call
maybe there should be a new law, all those freaks that are against scientific advancement, should be banished to live in a cave and hunt woolly mammoths.......errr... except the Woolly Mammoths would have to be cloned... then there's the fact that where will the land come from...

I say some deserted Island.


and how far back should they go... after all, matches are basic Chemestry... plus Antibiotics.... aspirin...

Oh, and by the way...
Terry Shaivo got herself into her little mess... her stroke was brought on by her starving herslef.
Oh ofcourse cause her husband said so! He's right about everything! Don't you know!? Mr.Shaivo is fucking Jesus! -_ -

Also, don't you think it would've been a little more humane to just give her a lethal injection instead of letting her starve to death? I mean, she's gonna die anyway right? So why make her suffer?
Well DUH! But you liberals left it up to her husband like morons!

I'm also disturbed at how our goverment treated her like a peace of furniture, AND how her husband had rights to her when he was going to get a divorce ANYWAY, they were only married for three years, and he had authority over the parents. But then again the goverment always tries to take power away from the parents and brainwash children..

omg.. I can't deal with this.. I'm signing out. The stupidity, it's like they're not even humans! Just machines of dirreha coming out thier mouths! >_<

Good Call
maybe there should be a new law, all those freaks that are against scientific advancement, should be banished to live in a cave and hunt woolly mammoths.......
Another persuasive and brilliantly-executed statement of logic. You've got me convinced .../sarcasm

errr... except the Woolly Mammoths would have to be cloned... then there's the fact that where will the land come from...


have you read the book Timeline by michael crichton quantum wormhole technology could send them back in time..... no more hassles for us and we can get on with our lives :)

oh no wait im sure they'll find some moral reason to object to quantum research to, like they did everything else.....

I'm not even going to go there. Arguing with you is pointless. You know as well as I do neither one of us is going to change are chances so just agree to disagree with me and save us both alot of typing.

You don't have to change your mind, but actually being informed on the facts involved instead of spouting outrageous lies might be nice.

The Terry Shaivo case should never have come up, but...

I am a Texan and I personally believe that all humans have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Legaly Terry Shaivo waved the right to Life. It was her choice to die. Things like this happen all over the world constantly, the only reason why this one got more publicity is b/c the parents were not repecting her wishes.


I prolly got all that wrong, but that is what I understood.

Oh ofcourse cause her husband said so! He's right about everything! Don't you know!? Mr.Shaivo is fucking Jesus! -_ -

Well DUH! But you liberals left it up to her husband like morons!I believe he had the power of Attorney... which means that she gave him that right.
I'm also disturbed at how our goverment treated her like a peace of furniture, AND how her husband had rights to her when he was going to get a divorce ANYWAY, they were only married for three years, and he had authority over the parents. But then again the goverment always tries to take power away from the parents and brainwash children.. so how long should they have been married... 8 yrs... 10 yrs... and untill the Devorce, he was still her HUSBAND. and he still had POWER OF ATTORNEY.

omg.. I can't deal with this.. I'm signing out. The stupidity, it's like they're not even humans! Just machines of dirreha coming out thier mouths! >_<Bye... and don't forget to wipe up before you go. :D

have you read the book Timeline by michael crichton quantum wormhole technology could send them back in time..... no more hassles for us and we can get on with our lives :)

Well sport assuming paradoxes are real it would fuck up the whole universe. Which I don't mind. Screwing stupid people over is worth the self-mutilation.

If however quantamn physics stands correct, if you sent anyone back in time space-time would fold around them thus creating an entirely new multiverse at the point in time in which they came. Ofcourse unlike the show "Sliders" they'd have no possible way of reaching home as to open another hole would only serve to fold space-time around them AGAIN at which they'd just tackle you, and have two conservatives which I doubt seriously is a result you want to happen..

And you are right, it is only a baby in my very subjective opinion. As is yours.

(a) You don't even know what my opinion is.

(b) While my opinion may be every bit as subjective (although it is based on measurable data), I am not trying to restrict others to my personal opinion.

Well DUH! But you liberals left it up to her husband like morons!

You mean the husband she willingly married and willingly gave the responsibility to? It was Terri Schiavo who gave her husband that responsibility, not the liberals, not the courts, and not the government.

I'm also disturbed at how our goverment treated her like a peace of furniture,

Aren't we all?

>Carbdown: "Oh ofcourse cause her husband said so! He's right about everything! Don't you know!? Mr.Shaivo is fucking Jesus! -_ -"

Actually, it was medically proven that her stroke was caused by her self imposed starvation in the first place. Think medical experts would take the word of a shmuck like mr shaivo? Don't think so. This of course offers the ultimate irony... she eventually ended up starving to death.


>Carbdown: "Well DUH! But you liberals left it up to her husband like morons!"

Since I'm canadian, I had absolutely nothing to do with this whole situation. It's a source over never-ending frustration to sit here and watch the american administration pump complete bullshit propoganda into the mainstream, and people believe it without a second thought. Why? because this president is RESPECTED for doing what he wants, then "staying the course". Well, I shouldn't say what HE wants... everyone knows Bush is just a puppet anyway.

My President is not a puppet.

(a) You don't even know what my opinion is.

(b) While my opinion may be every bit as subjective (although it is based on measurable data), I am not trying to restrict others to my personal opinion.
I don't know your opinion, but from your arguements, I can make a pretty good guess that it is not the same as mine.

What is this "restrict others to my personal opinion"? I am "restricted" to my own opinions, unless I happen to be schizophrenic, which I am not. I thought the point of these forums was to argue different points of view. And people will probably not argue a point of view different from their own.

have you read the book Timeline by michael crichton quantum wormhole technology could send them back in time..... no more hassles for us and we can get on with our lives :)

oh no wait im sure they'll find some moral reason to object to quantum research to, like they did everything else.....Human nature... Rage against the System... no matter who's system...

besides, I don't want anyone tripping and killing a chimp that might be my future daddy... or yours...

Yeah, I know simplifying evolution as a joke nothing more.

or worse... like "Life, the Universe and Everything" we could end up proving that we are decendants of our future selves being trick into going into the past...

:headbang:

So, from reading this thread it sounds as if there is no reasonable argument out there against stem cell research.

There ARE reasonable arguments against the practices used in IVF which result in the destruction of blastocysts which some people might believe shouldn't be destroyed since they are 'potential humans'.

Personally I don't believe that a few undiferentiated cells are sufficiently human to deserve any rights, but I could see a reasonable human being disagreeing on that point.

What IS interesting is that despite these reasonable objections IVF gets almost no negative attention, while Stem Cell research gets so much. This makes me seriously suspect the motives of the people making a big deal about all this. Why complain about stem cell reasearch and leave IVF alone?

Well, I think it's interesting at least.

What is this "restrict others to my personal opinion"? I am "restricted" to my own opinions, unless I happen to be schizophrenic, which I am not. I thought the point of these forums was to argue different points of view. And people will probably not argue a point of view different from their own.

Do you believe that embryonic stem cell reserach should be banned based on your subjective opinion that potential=actual?

If not, we have no problem. If so, then you are attempting to restrict other people based on your view.

My President is not a puppet.

Sure he is! Along with pretty much every other world leader. There's ALWAYS power(s) behind the throne. Bush is just a little worse at covering it up than everybody else.
I mean no offense Revan Darksword, I am merely a realist.

My President is not a puppet.

Mine is. His name is George W. Bush, otherwise known as Dubya.

Just to touch on the original topic for a moment ;):).

I'm all for embryonic stem cell research and do hope it will lead to new cures in the future.

The question of such early embryo's being life and having the right to live is interesting but when push come to shove its the people who's genetic material made these cells that have the ultimate right to decide what is done with unwanted excess blastocysts (excuse spelling).

I don't know how it works in the USA but here in Australia the "parents" can decide whether to donate them, have them destroyed, allow them to be used for research or store them indefinetly. I certainly don't believe its "killing babies" because thats illegal in Australia and if it was happening a lot of people would be in court charged with murder.

My President is not a puppet.
Well to be more specific he is a marionette puppet. They are pretty advanced puppets, and take alot of skill to use right. They can look suprisingly life-like though.

Do you believe that embryonic stem cell reserach should be banned based on your subjective opinion that potential=actual?

If not, we have no problem. If so, then you are attempting to restrict other people based on your view.
Yes.

Do you believe that unrestricted embryonic cell research should be allowed? What about cloning? Human cloning? Do you believe abortion is moral and/or should be legal, and at what stage should it not be legal, if ever?

As to restricting other people based on a particular viewpoint, isn't that true of anyone promoting a particular viewpoint? I thought that was how democracy worked. A legislature is elected, and, based on the views of its constituents and the legislators themselves, laws are made.

I just think it's sad that the majority of the great nation that is America could be so thoroughly duped. I mean, it's patriotism to the point of ignorance. And if you spoke out against, then you were labelled "un-patriotic"... the irony being that being able to speak out againts the government is what democracy is all about.

Well to be more specific he is a marionette puppet. They are pretty advanced puppets, and take alot of skill to use right. They can look suprisingly life-like though.

oh, snap!

Yes.

Do you believe that unrestricted embryonic cell research should be allowed? What about cloning? Human cloning? Do you believe abortion is moral and/or should be legal, and at what stage should it not be legal, if ever?

As to restricting other people based on a particular viewpoint, isn't that true of anyone promoting a particular viewpoint? I thought that was how democracy worked. A legislature is elected, and, based on the views of its constituents and the legislators themselves, laws are made.
You do realize these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, right? No matter what laws we pass in regards to stem cell research these embryos will be destroyed. If we can instead use them to cure disease, whats the problem?

Yes.

Why should your subjective viewpoint be forced upon others? What makes you God?

Do you believe that unrestricted embryonic cell research should be allowed?

No. It should, of course, be a regulated area of study.

What about cloning? Human cloning?

Unrestricted? Absolutely not. Regulated therapeutic cloning? Absolutely. Reproductive human cloning? Absolutely not.

Do you believe abortion is moral and/or should be legal, and at what stage should it not be legal, if ever?

Moral? In most cases, no.

Legal? There is no objective reason to put any restrictions at all on it before there is some rudimentary nervous system.

As to restricting other people based on a particular viewpoint, isn't that true of anyone promoting a particular viewpoint?

No. I personally believe that abortion is wrong in nearly all cases. However, that does not mean that I am going to force that opinion upon others.

I thought that was how democracy worked. A legislature is elected, and, based on the views of its constituents and the legislators themselves, laws are made.

If you wish to restrict a person's rights, you damn well have a better reason than "Well, I just think it should be that way." Remember, we don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic, overseen by the Constitution.

I just think it's sad that the majority of the great nation that is America could be so thoroughly duped. I mean, it's patriotism to the point of ignorance. And if you spoke out against, then you were labelled "un-patriotic"... the irony being that being able to speak out againts the government is what democracy is all about.
I just think it's sad that when those on the left are upset about being in the minority, they simply label the majority as "dupes" and "ignorant", having no logical arguements to defend their own point of view.

Why would people name-calling you un-patriotic restrict your freedom of speech? Has it been restricted at all since 9/11? Thought police visited recently?

I personally believe that stem cell research could eventually lead to medical breakthroughs in the future, a reason why I am glad California passed Proposition 71.

And for the sake of a rational and mature discussion, I hope that all participants here will move away from these divisive tangents. Abortion, Terri Schiavo, Political associations, and Sci-Fi cloning, while all loosely connected to this topic, are not directly related to this discussion of the merits and faults of stem cell research. Let us deal with the cold facts dealing this topic, rather than spin off onto a philosophical argument on when life begins. Moral arguments cannot be won on an internet forum, so there is no point in going into potentially offensive areas of discussion.

If the discussion continues in this manner, than there will only be room for more flamming, rather than real debate.

Thank you.

Why should your subjective viewpoint be forced upon others? What makes you God?



No. It should, of course, be a regulated area of study.



Unrestricted? Absolutely not. Regulated therapeutic cloning? Absolutely. Reproductive human cloning? Absolutely not.



Moral? In most cases, no.

Legal? There is no objective reason to put any restrictions at all on it before there is some rudimentary nervous system.



No. I personally believe that abortion is wrong in nearly all cases. However, that does not mean that I am going to force that opinion upon others.



If you wish to restrict a person's rights, you damn well have a better reason than "Well, I just think it should be that way." Remember, we don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic, overseen by the Constitution.
It is not an issue of restricting a person's rights, it is an issue of protecting the unborn's rights.

The real arguement, as I have stated before, is whether the unborn merit the same protections as those of us outside the womb.

When you speak of forcing opinions on others, I was not aware that there were those of us who could employ mind control. A law could be passed restricting abortion, but that does not restrict your opinion.

Laws are passed all the time, or reinterpreted by SCOTUS, that I disagree with, and, restrict my rights. That is the way democracy works, for good or ill.

Do you believe that unrestricted embryonic cell research should be allowed? What about cloning? Human cloning?
So this is probably the topic for another thread, but what bothers people about cloning anyway? A lot of people seem to be bothered by human cloning, but they never seem to be able to give better reasons than vague sci-fi inspired fears.

Once a clone was born it would still have to grow up like any normal child, and would probably be different from it's parent in many ways. Can anyone explain their misgivings about cloning to me? I am completely baffled by the matter.

I personally believe that stem cell research could eventually lead to medical breakthroughs in the future, a reason why I am glad California passed Proposition 71.

And for the sake of a rational and mature discussion, I hope that all participants here will move away from these divisive tangents. Abortion, Terri Schiavo, Political associations, and Sci-Fi cloning, while all loosely connected to this topic, are not directly related to this discussion of the merits and faults of stem cell research. Let us deal with the cold facts dealing this topic, rather than spin off onto a philosophical argument on when life begins. Moral arguments cannot be won on an internet forum, so there is no point in going into potentially offensive areas of discussion.

If the discussion continues in this manner, than there will only be room for more flamming, rather than real debate.

Thank you.
The issue of stem-cell research is inseparable from the abortion debate, as many pro-life folks, including myself, believe destroying the blastocysts for any purpose amounts to abortion, which is the very reason they want it restricted or banned.

I just think it's sad that when those on the left are upset about being in the minority, they simply label the majority as "dupes" and "ignorant", having no logical arguements to defend their own point of view.

Why would people name-calling you un-patriotic restrict your freedom of speech? Has it been restricted at all since 9/11? Thought police visited recently?

Well, no... since I'm not an american citizen, my rights haven't been affected whatsoever by the "Patriot Act". I mean, they even had the gall to call it the "Patriot Act". C'mon guys. Besides, if it weren't for "the architect" Carl Rove and his deceitful manipulation of the masses through pretty much every medium you can think of, there wouldn't be a republican president and Texas would still be a blue state.

So this is probably the topic for another thread, but what bothers people about cloning anyway? A lot of people seem to be bothered by human cloning, but they never seem to be able to give better reasons than vague sci-fi inspired fears.

Once a clone was born it would still have to grow up like any normal child, and would probably be different from it's parent in many ways. Can anyone explain their misgivings about cloning to me? I am completely baffled by the matter.
It raises all sorts of ethical issues. What if someone cloned me without my knowledge? Do I have any rights to prevent that? What if the clones were deliberately created in a vegetative state for the sole purpose of body parts? Would those clones have rights? How different would it be from the original? Who would be responsible for its upbringing? How many of me should I be allowed? How many attempts/viable clone is acceptable (heard just today Texas A&M cloned a horse after 400 attempts - meaning 399 died before the successful clone was created).

The issue of stem-cell research is inseparable from the abortion debate, as many pro-life folks, including myself, believe destroying the blastocysts for any purpose amounts to abortion, which is the very reason they want it restricted or banned.
The point is these blasotcysts are going to be destroyed even if you ban stem cell research. You're just removing the potential for medical research. If they are going to be destroyed anyway, why not do so in a way that might help people.

It is not an issue of restricting a person's rights, it is an issue of protecting the unborn's rights.

It is only a subjective opinion that leads you to believe that any embryo has rights in the first place.

When you speak of forcing opinions on others, I was not aware that there were those of us who could employ mind control. A law could be passed restricting abortion, but that does not restrict your opinion.

It restricts someone else's rights based soley on a subjective opinion held by a subset of the population.

Laws are passed all the time, or reinterpreted by SCOTUS, that I disagree with, and, restrict my rights. That is the way democracy works, for good or ill.

Most laws have an objective basis. Those that don't will likely fall by the wayside eventually. What law has recently been passed which restricts your rights and is not based in an objective viewpoint?

...and on that note I'll take my leave, as it's nearly 3:30AM and time to crash.... bloody work in the morning. So cheers folks, and remember the valuable lessons we've learned here today!

Well, no... since I'm not an american citizen, my rights haven't been affected whatsoever by the "Patriot Act". I mean, they even had the gall to call it the "Patriot Act". C'mon guys. Besides, if it weren't for "the architect" Carl Rove and his deceitful manipulation of the masses through pretty much every medium you can think of, there wouldn't be a republican president and Texas would still be a blue state.
Do you live in the US?

Do you have any idea how "red" the state of Texas is? It is almost as Republican as Massachusetts is blue. Every single statewide office is held by a Republican. Something like 65% voted for W, and that trend held across all races. The same occurred in 2000. I know - I live here.

And by the way, it's Karl, not Carl.

Once a clone was born it would still have to grow up like any normal child, and would probably be different from it's parent in many ways. Can anyone explain their misgivings about cloning to me? I am completely baffled by the matter.

It wouldn't grow up like any other child.

(a) Those raising the child would expect it to be just like whomever was cloned - which may or may not be true and coul dbe psychologically damaging.

(b) The child would have adult telomeres, likely shortening its life.

The issue of stem-cell research is inseparable from the abortion debate, as many pro-life folks, including myself, believe destroying the blastocysts for any purpose amounts to abortion, which is the very reason they want it restricted or banned.

The fact that you cannot tell the difference does not truly make the debate inseparable.

The issue of stem-cell research is inseparable from the abortion debate, as many pro-life folks, including myself, believe destroying the blastocysts for any purpose amounts to abortion, which is the very reason they want it restricted or banned.
Actually, I think it's been made pretty clear that abortion is a seperate topic here since no aborted fetuses are ever used for stem cell research.

Stem cell research could stop tomorrow and abortion would continue, and abortion could stop tomorrow and stem cell research would continue. The two are completely seperate if you're thinking clearly.

What is posibly slightly relevant is the morality of the procedures used in IVF which provides us with the stem cells. Now, no one has yet made an remotely reasonable arguement against using the cells of blastocysts that are going to be destroyed anyway.

Now if you object to the destruction of blastocysts, that's another issue, but as matters stand, they're being destroyed regardless of whether we do stem cell research or not.

If you intend to be rational you should object to IVF and leave stem cells (which are only tangentially relevant to IVF) out of it.

It is only a subjective opinion that leads you to believe that any embryo has rights in the first place.



It restricts someone else's rights based soley on a subjective opinion held by a subset of the population.



Most laws have an objective basis. Those that don't will likely fall by the wayside eventually. What law has recently been passed which restricts your rights and is not based in an objective viewpoint?
It is only subjective opinion that leads you to believe an embryo does not have any rights (or at least you have not forwarded an arguement to that end).

All laws are made on the basis of a segment of the population's support for it, objective or not.

Could be argued that all laws are made on a subjective basis, based on the values of the society creating them.

It is only subjective opinion that leads you to believe an embryo does not have any rights (or at least you have not forwarded an arguement to that end).

Well based on our subjective laws I can objectively say that currently an embryo does not have rights.

Actually, I think it's been made pretty clear that abortion is a seperate topic here since no aborted fetuses are ever used for stem cell research.

Stem cell research could stop tomorrow and abortion would continue, and abortion could stop tomorrow and stem cell research would continue. The two are completely seperate if you're thinking clearly.

What is posibly slightly relevant is the morality of the procedures used in IVF which provides us with the stem cells. Now, no one has yet made an remotely reasonable arguement against using the cells of blastocysts that are going to be destroyed anyway.

Now if you object to the destruction of blastocysts, that's another issue, but as matters stand, they're being destroyed regardless of whether we do stem cell research or not.

If you intend to be rational you should object to IVF and leave stem cells (which are only tangentially relevant to IVF) out of it.
If you'd read thru the rest of the thread, you would see that I HAVE objected to IVF.

I will once again forward my arguement that it is not intent that defines potential life, but the potential itself. If I intend to implant that blastocyst in a mother and carry to term, it is just as much a potential life as if I intend to throw it in the trash. The potential for life exists either way, the intention merely establishes or destroys that potential.

Embryonic stem cell research uses and destroys blastocysts. There is no objection to stem cell research from umbilical cords or adult stem cells.

Well based on our subjective laws I can objectively say that currently an embryo does not have rights.
Very good. Then if I punch your pregnant wife in the belly and cause her to miscarry, the only thing you can charge me with is assault.

By the way, even California disagrees with you, since Scott Peterson was convicted for both the death of his wife and the baby. So apparently the baby has rights when it comes to blatant murder by the husband, but not if a doctor does it.

It raises all sorts of ethical issues. What if someone cloned me without my knowledge? Do I have any rights to prevent that? What if the clones were deliberately created in a vegetative state for the sole purpose of body parts? Would those clones have rights? How different would it be from the original? Who would be responsible for its upbringing? How many of me should I be allowed? How many attempts/viable clone is acceptable (heard just today Texas A&M cloned a horse after 400 attempts - meaning 399 died before the successful clone was created).
So these seem like fairly reasonable issues that would certainly have to be addressed, but could reasonably be dealt with through legislation. I think that most people would agree that people should retain the right to refuse to be cloned, and that a clone should have all the rights of any naturally born child.

Cloning people for body parts could be a much stickier issue, but it's my understanding that we expect to be able to grow just the parts without alone. In that case, it's really no different than what your body does when it replaces cells and repairs itself - we'd just be helping the process out in a lab.

I'm not really too sure about the isue of the non viable clones, but that's exactly the same issue that comes up with IVF so we have to deal with it whether or not we ever clone humans.

If you'd read thru the rest of the thread, you would see that I HAVE objected to IVF.

I will once again forward my arguement that it is not intent that defines potential life, but the potential itself. If I intend to implant that blastocyst in a mother and carry to term, it is just as much a potential life as if I intend to throw it in the trash. The potential for life exists either way, the intention merely establishes or destroys that potential.

Embryonic stem cell research uses and destroys blastocysts. There is no objection to stem cell research from umbilical cords or adult stem cells.
And if you read thru the rest of the thread you would see that umbilical and adult stem cells don't carry nearly the same potential as embryonic stem cells. You'd also know that these embryos will be destroyed, with or without stem cell research. The point is using them for stem cell reasearch has the potential for medical breakthroughs.

It is only subjective opinion that leads you to believe an embryo does not have any rights (or at least you have not forwarded an arguement to that end).

You are the one attempting to overturn thousands of years of common and written law. I think the burden of proof may be on you.

Meanwhile, by the biological definition of an organism, an embryo isn't even an organism.

All laws are made on the basis of a segment of the population's support for it, objective or not.

And such laws, if purely subjective, fail Constitutional review.

Very good. Then if I punch your pregnant wife in the belly and cause her to miscarry, the only thing you can charge me with is assault.

By the way, even California disagrees with you, since Scott Peterson was convicted for both the death of his wife and the baby. So apparently the baby has rights when it comes to blatant murder by the husband, but not if a doctor does it.
Fair enough, but we aren't talking about blatant murder by the husband. We're talking about when the doctor does it, so the embryo still has no rights.

And if you read thru the rest of the thread you would see that umbilical and adult stem cells don't carry nearly the same potential as embryonic stem cells. You'd also know that these embryos will be destroyed, with or without stem cell research. The point is using them for stem cell reasearch has the potential for medical breakthroughs.
This "potential" for medical breakthroughs is no more proven, probably less so, than reviving a frozen blastocyst and reimplanting it and carrying it to term.

Very good. Then if I punch your pregnant wife in the belly and cause her to miscarry, the only thing you can charge me with is assault.

If she is not third term, that would probably be correct.

By the way, even California disagrees with you, since Scott Peterson was convicted for both the death of his wife and the baby. So apparently the baby has rights when it comes to blatant murder by the husband, but not if a doctor does it.

Scott Peterson was convicted of killing a viable fetus, which is protected under our law.

Fair enough, but we aren't talking about blatant murder by the husband. We're talking about when the doctor does it, so the embryo still has no rights.
Someone's not being consistent . . .
It had rights in the California courtroom, as there would be no reason to prosecute if it had none.

But it has no rights at the doctor's office?

Someone's not being consistent . . .
It had rights in the California courtroom, as there would be no reason to prosecute if it had none.

But it has no rights at the doctor's office?

A doctor would not have been able to abort Laci Peterson's pregnancy either, unless the pregnancy was likely to kill her or the fetus died inside of her. It was a viable fetus, well past the point at which abortion is legal.

This "potential" for medical breakthroughs is no more proven, probably less so, than reviving a frozen blastocyst and reimplanting it and carrying it to term.
Thats because we can't frikken research them. If we were able to research them we would have more proof. All current evidence points to a large potential for medical breakthroughs. And my point still stands, these blastocysts are NEVER going to be carried to term. They are all going to be destroyed. Why not use them for medical research instead?

despite repeated reminders by several people, some of you do not yet understand that Abortiom != Stem Cell research, they are like apples and oranges nothing alike

SO GIVE UP ON THE ABORTION CRAP

were talking about STEM CELL RESEARCH

Embryonic stem cell research uses and destroys blastocysts. There is no objection to stem cell research from umbilical cords or adult stem cells.
Actually, Embryonic stem cell research never destroys a blastocyst that wasn't already going to be destroyed for other purposes. If a man were dead would you object to his organs being used to save another man? That's effectively what you're objecting to here.

Since the blastocysts are for all intents and purposes already dead, isn't it a good thing that we can at least make some use of them?

If they weren't already being destroyed this would be another argument.

There is no objection to stem cell research from umbilical cords or adult stem cells.

except for the FACT that they do not work as well as embryonic stem cells

Some poeple think that life begins at fetilization, when the genes from two parents combine to form a new idividual.

Others think that 'personhood' begins at day 12, because identical twinning can occur as late as day 12. Both twins are unique individuals.

A third view is that because deth is defined as the loss of the cerebral EEG pattern, it should also define the beginning of life. The acquisition of the EEG pattren occurs at about 27 weeks.

There is also the view that human life begins when it can exist separetly from its maternal environment, when the lungs mature. Due to technological advances at about 25 weeks. This is the view held by many states.

Lastly there is the are the people who think that life begins when a peron is born. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the religion of islam consider ensolement(?) to happen at birth.

Just something for you all to ponder. ;)

The needs of many outweigh the needs of one.

I have no problem with stem cell research from embryonic stem cells.

Life begins long before the womb, because by definition bacteria are alive, and sperm and ova are both bacteria in a greater sense. So life begins with the develpoment of the two bacterium.

But don't think that just because I am pro-life that I am anti advancement, the truth is that we should develop stem cell research. And the truth is it's not like they are using wanted children, infact all the embryos they use were aborted, it's a shame to end life before it can truly begin and I beleive it to be a greater sin then murder to take the life of one's own kin, because that's what these women are doing taking the life of a creature of Gaia given to them to pass their genetics on, a living entity that she gave the eternal spark to.

But I also beleive that we shouldn't just throw away the embryos, and pardon me if I sound a little ghoulish but, we shouldn't trow away such a valuable resource. Because if those aborted fetus' can help cure cancer or destroy aids or give a crippled boy the strength to walk, then I beleive that they would be martyrs of humanity. Not just America or Europe but for all of the world. And if I was sent back to my creator before my birth because my mother aborted me, I'd want, nay demand that my death account for something. I would rather die a martyr at pre-birth then die an old useless man.

They're not aborted. The embryo's or to give them their proper name, blastocysts, used are IVF excess. They are fertilized in a laboratory and have never seen the inside of a womb. Most IVF patients have many eggs fertilized to increase their chances of conception and after that happens most of the excess are just destroyed. All I've read on this subject say that aborted fetuses are pretty much useless for stem cells.

Still life all the same, a true shame if we were to let their existence fade without an end, suitable of a martyr. Yes if we could bring life to them we should, but if we can not find a mother to bear those children, we must make their existence stand for something.

[QUOTE=Greater Yubari]The needs of many outweigh the needs of one.

QUOTE]

Ship...out of danger?

Sorry, I know you're making a point, I just love that movie, and I think its a poignant scene...every time I hear that axiom, I think of it being used in the reactor room

based on a belief in god. or that it is destroying a 'life'Yeah, why would people make a moral decision based on their religion or the universal moral principle that ending a human life is bad? Shocker!

Anyway, I'm torn on the issue. Both as a Catholic and as a citizen, it is with deep anxiety and growing surprise that I notice the fact that embryonic stem cell research is basically both playing God, and objectifying human life.

However, as a pragmatic European, I can't help but notice that the next revolution (after the industrial and information revolutions) is there, and that the Americans are about to take the lead in this one, too, and that if we want to preserve our power for the next centuries, we need to be in the lead on embryonic stem cell research.

With each alternative, the outcome is potentially devastating: by refusing the research, we may be dooming our continent to relative powerlessness in the ~22nd century, but by accepting, we may be dooming our continent to a Brave New World where embryos are the victims of a new Holocaust and where society, based on an inhuman paradigm, can only fall into totalitarianism.

People who choose leadership are ----ed in the head.

Life begins long before the womb, because by definition bacteria are alive, and sperm and ova are both bacteria in a greater sense. So life begins with the develpoment of the two bacterium.

Sperm an ova are in no sense whatsoever bacteria and they cannot be classified as living organisms. Bacteria are prokaryotes and humans are eukaryotes, humans are more closely related to trees than to bacteria.

It is always a fine line we walk as humans. Stem Cell reaserch could do great things for our race, but I am horrified by it. My problem is what I see in all the other posts. We have begun to classify and judge what is life and what is not. This is a living being, this is just genetic matter. Let me put it too you like this. Lets say we need to try new vaccines, or for that matter, new military weapons. Well since the mentally handicapped are "contributing" to society, why dont we use them? After all, they arent living fullfilling lives right?
If that statement dosnt bother you, that I feel sorry for you. Stem cell research is the same mentallity to me. This bit of genetic matter is really human, so we can use it how ever we want.

Still life all the same, a true shame if we were to let their existence fade without an end, suitable of a martyr. Yes if we could bring life to them we should, but if we can not find a mother to bear those children, we must make their existence stand for something.

This is completely off topic, but I saw the name Draconis Federation and was wondering if you are a Battletech playa

Thankyou, you have just confirmed my belief that all conservatives are scheming tyrants looking to control us, and liberals are fucking retarded.Oh like you really care. Your the fuckers that starved a woman to death. You don't think of people as people, you think of them as cattle for your little expirmenets. Fuck you, don't touch me and stay away from me. I don't want to be used for any of your peverse "scientific breakthroughs"..Commit suicide, you've failed as a human being. Cause I know how you idiots think. Now go back and read my last post bitch. *Plays more Star Wars theme*
Carbdown, for these and other similar comments in this thread and others, you are Officially Warned for flaming and flamebaiting. This is your only warning. Continuing along these lines will get you forumbanned or deleted.

Knock it off, NOW!

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

However, as a pragmatic European, I can't help but notice that the next revolution (after the industrial and information revolutions) is there, and that the Americans are about to take the lead in this one, too, and that if we want to preserve our power for the next centuries, we need to be in the lead on embryonic stem cell research.

I truth, the Koreans are currently the top of the line in ESC research. The only team which has successfully created a line from therapeutic cloning (which never involves a sperm) is Korean.

With each alternative, the outcome is potentially devastating: by refusing the research, we may be dooming our continent to relative powerlessness in the ~22nd century, but by accepting, we may be dooming our continent to a Brave New World where embryos are the victims of a new Holocaust and where society, based on an inhuman paradigm, can only fall into totalitarianism.

Way to exaggerate things completely out of proportion.

Sperm an ova are in no sense whatsoever bacteria and they cannot be classified as living organisms. Bacteria are prokaryotes and humans are eukaryotes, humans are more closely related to trees than to bacteria.
All carbon life forms capable of self replication, unlike virus' bacteria are alive by definition, they resperate, they reproduce, they digest, and the die, just like us, except on a smaller scale.

It is always a fine line we walk as humans. Stem Cell reaserch could do great things for our race, but I am horrified by it. My problem is what I see in all the other posts. We have begun to classify and judge what is life and what is not. This is a living being, this is just genetic matter. Let me put it too you like this. Lets say we need to try new vaccines, or for that matter, new military weapons. Well since the mentally handicapped are "contributing" to society, why dont we use them? After all, they arent living fullfilling lives right?
If that statement dosnt bother you, that I feel sorry for you. Stem cell research is the same mentallity to me. This bit of genetic matter is really human, so we can use it how ever we want.
That's just cold, but if they leave their bodies to science then I see not problem. And same for the unused embryos of mothers who wouldn't use them any way, sadly If we could I'd like to find a way to create a synthetic stem cell but as of now that is impossible. But the fact is if an embryo goes unused it is destined to be destroyed anyway, so what better way to die then for the advancement of human kind?

Yeah, why would people make a moral decision based on their religion or the universal moral principle that ending a human life is bad? Shocker!

Anyway, I'm torn on the issue. Both as a Catholic and as a citizen, it is with deep anxiety and growing surprise that I notice the fact that embryonic stem cell research is basically both playing God, and objectifying human life.

However, as a pragmatic European, I can't help but notice that the next revolution (after the industrial and information revolutions) is there, and that the Americans are about to take the lead in this one, too, and that if we want to preserve our power for the next centuries, we need to be in the lead on embryonic stem cell research.

With each alternative, the outcome is potentially devastating: by refusing the research, we may be dooming our continent to relative powerlessness in the ~22nd century, but by accepting, we may be dooming our continent to a Brave New World where embryos are the victims of a new Holocaust and where society, based on an inhuman paradigm, can only fall into totalitarianism.

People who choose leadership are ----ed in the head.
Actually, mein european fruend, there are two revolutions to come the biological or embryonic, and the technological or nano. Perhaps if we are able to study the stem cell and find out how it's created then perhaps we can make a synthetic one using nano technology. And combine the two to avoid such a horrendous fate.

ALthough this may have been said, embrynos are not the sole source of stem cells so chill all you christians.
Stem cell variants have bee found in hair, bone marrow, teeth and cord blood.
the only reason that embryobic cells are being used is that the science is young the the other stuff is more complex. It's sort of like comparing multiplication tables to calculus. Both the same, but one is harder.
Insted of banning stem cell research, they should be encouraging reasearch into finding ways to use non embryonic stem cells.
The only people that should oppose stem cells are those that want alzheimers and parkinsons' disease sufferers, para and quadraplegics and other degenerative diseases to die or keep suffering.
If GOd says "it's time", it does not matter if we have stem cell reasearch or the secret to the resurrection, it's time.

Yeah, afterbirth stem cells, but once you start adding "god" to the argument you begin to lose credit in the scientific community, even though many of them are religous they prefer to leave "him/her" our of it.

Actually, mein european fruend, there are two revolutions to come the biological or embryonic, and the technological or nano. Perhaps if we are able to study the stem cell and find out how it's created then perhaps we can make a synthetic one using nano technology. And combine the two to avoid such a horrendous fate.I've been told by people who play experts on TV that nanotech is much more far off and SF-like than biotech.

Anyway, we'll see, won't we?

Yep, we will.

Oh noooo, the fact that you need a dead baby has no connection what so ever to an abortion. How silly of me!

-_ -

Commit suicide, you've failed as a human being. Reincarnate as something less demanding of complicated brain patterns, like a seahorse.

Stem-cells are havested from IVF (In Vitro Fertilization)... The process works by extracting harvesting several hundred eggs from the woman's ovaries... They are then fertilized with either sperm from the husband/partner or from an anonymous donor. Viable embryos are then frozen... A couple are used for initial placement (usually 2 to 4 depending on procedure) where only 1 implants (the others die)... The rest are kept in frozen (cryogenic-state) for future implantings up to 5 years... If the remainder remain in storage that long, they are then placed in "un-claimed status"... At this point, the facility can request their use for other means (implanting in other women, or for medical research)... If they remain unclaimed, they are either destroyed, or sent for stem-cell havesting or other research uses...

Now that you have been properly informed, you can make an educated response, instead of the igorant bull-shit you've been spewing up until this point...

EMBRYIONIC STEM CELLS ARE NOT HARVESTED FROM ABORTIONS! THEY ARE HAVESTED FROM BLASTOCYSTS (5-7 day OLD embryos from IVF procedures)... ABORTION AND STEM-CELL RESEARCH IS NOT CONNECTED.... NORMAL ABORTION OCCUR 5-10 WEEKS AFTER FERTILIZATION... PAST THE PERIOD WHERE STEM-CELLS CAN BE HARVESTED... STOP CONNECTING THE TWO!!!!!

Accutally on the invitro thing, it's common for 2 eggs to survive, their are even reports of women having 12 babys because they used 12 eggs in invitro so, what you said isn't allways true and the fact is more then often it's multiple births.

Accutally on the invitro thing, it's common for 2 eggs to survive, their are even reports of women having 12 babys because they used 12 eggs in invitro so, what you said isn't allways true and the fact is more then often it's multiple births.

Actually, it is rare now that blastocysts are used instead of newly fertilized eggs... And implantation of more than 4 is not recommended, and recently has been dropped to two... You're talking about the older procedures.

The government should neither support nor oppose stem cell research. It should end its involvement in scientific affairs (except developing military technology) entirely. That includes kissing NASA good-bye, or at least privatizing it.

The government should neither support nor oppose stem cell research. It should end its involvement in scientific affairs (except developing military technology) entirely. That includes kissing NASA good-bye, or at least privatizing it.

There goes any semblance of quick progress in most technical fields...

Yeah, afterbirth stem cells, but once you start adding "god" to the argument you begin to lose credit in the scientific community, even though many of them are religous they prefer to leave "him/her" our of it.

It really isn't preference so much as necessity. God is, by definition, outside the realm of science.