Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Neubob on November 20, 2007, 10:20:01 AM
-
Looks hopeful (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21886974/)
So they may be able to generate cells with stem-like characteristics without having to use embryonic tissue--sounds good, right? I just wonder what the religious wackos are gonna say now to challenge this technology.
Maybe as a little game, we can try to predict their new arguments....
-
I'm looking forward to new cartilage for my knees in the future :-D
-
my list -
new spine (cracked, compressed and twisted, self inflicted mostly)
new left shoulder (dislocated once, shoulderblade torn ligaments)
new liver, lungs. (duh)
new knees (snowboarding, skateboarding, ouch)
new teeth (i am a brit)
that is all, thanks.
-
See guys, you're thinking way too short-term.
I would eventually like to be completely replaced, from head to toe, with non-aging biological components that perfectly mimic my natural body. However, before that happens, I would definitely like to go through a phase where I've got a Darth Vader-like cybernetic anatomy--complete with sounds and appearance.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Looks hopeful (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21886974/)
So they may be able to generate cells with stem-like characteristics without having to use embryonic tissue--sounds good, right? I just wonder what the religious wackos are gonna say now to challenge this technology.
Maybe as a little game, we can try to predict their new arguments....
I don't know about "religious wackos", but the majority of Christians such as myself and others, who are against destruction of embryos for use in research and "theraputic cloning", will likely welcome this breakthrough, if it pans out. You see, I am not against stem cell research; I'm very much supportive of it. Indeed, adult and cord-blood stem cell research has actually produced scores of treatments that are in use or in the human clinical trial stages (unlike embryonic stem cell research which has produced none that I know of).
Try not to use such a broad brush next time, Neubob...it gets paint everywhere. The opposition all along is to the use of ESC's, not the research itself. The current administration is the first to actually authorize Federal funds for ESC research, so long as it doesn't destroy embryos to get there. The above research easily qualifies under that restriction, and I would support use of Fed $s for it.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Try not to use such a broad brush next time, Neubob...it gets paint everywhere. The opposition all along is to the use of ESC's, not the research itself. The current administration is the first to actually authorize Federal funds for ESC research, so long as it doesn't destroy embryos to get there. The above research easily qualifies under that restriction, and I would support use of Fed $s for it.
The religious wackos in this case would scurry to find fault with this take on the technology and try to sell the idea to the masses. The rest of the whackos would agree with that idea and carry it forward.
If your eyes are open and you welcome progress then you're not a wacko, and shouldn't assume that I meant the term to apply to you or anybody who thinks like you.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Looks hopeful (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21886974/)
So they may be able to generate cells with stem-like characteristics without having to use embryonic tissue--sounds good, right? I just wonder what the religious wackos are gonna say now to challenge this technology.
Maybe as a little game, we can try to predict their new arguments....
Why do you think the "religious wacko's" would challenge this technology?
Do you even understand their opposition to embryonic stem cell research?
If these "religious wacko's" object to embryonic stem cell research and this article points to an alternative to that, why would they object?
The only objection I can foresee based on the article would be the need for more embryonic stem cell research as a result of this discovery (questioning the logic here).
-
Forgive me then if I read too much into your post, Neub. It is often the case that terms like "religious wackos" are used to describe anyone of serious religious conviction. I am curious then to know what persons or groups you refer to then. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
The religious wackos in this case would scurry to find fault with this take on the technology and try to sell the idea to the masses. The rest of the whackos would agree with that idea and carry it forward.
That's funny. You could use that same explanation to describe those that would insist on embryonic stem cell research over adult stem cell research even though the former has not produced the results that the latter has.
-
Why are those who feel life is precious and deserved to be spoken for called "wackos"?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
The religious wackos in this case would scurry to find fault with this take on the technology and try to sell the idea to the masses. The rest of the whackos would agree with that idea and carry it forward.
If your eyes are open and you welcome progress then you're not a wacko, and shouldn't assume that I meant the term to apply to you or anybody who thinks like you.
I'll be interested to see what "religious wackos" opposition you find on this. As Sabre alluded to, your generalization reveals your misunderstanding of the issue.
-
Lol, why are you guys already getting bent of shape?
Maybe when I said religious wackos, I wasn't including everyone and their mother in that characterization? Maybe some of you are way too hell bent on getting offended at every hint of a poke at the religious segment of the population.
My understanding of the issue is just fine, Iron. The 'religious wackos' who opposed this technology did so because a primary source of stem cell material was human embryos, and thus were construed to end a life--even though this stem cell material can be gathered from an embryo that has undergone just several cell divisions and can hardly be defined as clinically alive.
So those who find life 'precious', are against the destruction of en embryo, if even that destruction can lead to the saving of countless lives of fully developed human. That argument is nonsensical to me, and certainly a product of indoctrinated reasoning. A shortcut to actual thought. Those who find life precious should be more concerned with those who are definitely alive, not just those tiny biological bits that may one day be born.
This latest issue steps away from embryos and uses renewable human tissue. However, since certain 'religious wackos' tend to find a way to find fault in anything (these are the true wackos here, guys, not everyone who happens to attend church on sunday), I would assume that they'd also find fault in creating spare parts for people as a concept in general. Just imagine how many ways one can describe this process in a negative light?
It's giving life that was never intended.
It's building human parts
It's undermining god's monopoly on the creation of living tissues
I can see all of these statements from the mouths of certain backward-thinking rhetoricians. If you're among them, don't take these posts as a reference to you.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Lol, why are you guys already getting bent of shape?
Maybe when I said religious wackos, I wasn't including everyone and their mother in that characterization? Maybe some of you are way too hell bent on getting offended at every hint of a poke at the religious segment of the population.
My understanding of the issue is just fine, Iron. The 'religious wackos' who opposed this technology did so because a primary source of stem cell material was human embryos, and thus were construed to end a life--even though this stem cell material can be gathered from an embryo that has undergone just several cell divisions and can hardly be defined as clinically alive.
So those who find life 'precious', are against the destruction of en embryo, if even that destruction can lead to the saving of countless lives of fully developed human. That argument is nonsensical to me, and certainly a product of indoctrinated reasoning. A shortcut to actual thought. Those who find life precious should be more concerned with those who are definitely alive, not just those tiny biological bits that may one day be born.
This latest issue steps away from embryos and uses renewable human tissue. However, since certain 'religious wackos' tend to find a way to find fault in anything (these are the true wackos here, guys, not everyone who happens to attend church on sunday), I would assume that they'd also find fault in creating spare parts for people as a concept in general. Just imagine how many ways one can describe this process in a negative light?
It's giving life that was never intended.
It's building human parts
It's undermining god's monopoly on the creation of living tissues
I can see all of these statements from the mouths of certain backward-thinking rhetoricians. If you're among them, don't take these posts as a reference to you.
Actually, the primary source of Stem Cells is NOT embryonic stem cells. It's adult stem cells. In this, many breakthroughs have been made with adult stem cells. Absolutely no breakthroughs have ever been made with embryonic stem cells.
Except for those that shun even the smallest of medical help, the "Religious Right Wackos" welcome the advances of Stem Cell Research. However, they will not allow embryos and human lives to be trivialized.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
See guys, you're thinking way too short-term.
I would eventually like to be completely replaced, from head to toe, with non-aging biological components that perfectly mimic my natural body. However, before that happens, I would definitely like to go through a phase where I've got a Darth Vader-like cybernetic anatomy--complete with sounds and appearance.
http://www.sens.org/
I'm going straight for the Darth Vader part... after a short while enjoying reforestation of my cranium.
-
I have damaged nerves in my arm, stem cell research could lead to help for people like me much sooner, if not for the wackos getting in the way of science.
Lets say you're in a burning building, in one corner is a cute little 5 year old girl.. her hair in on fire, face melting, shes screaming and all that. In the other corner is a Petrie dish with 5 viable embryos, or "babies" / "children" or whatever.
You can only save one...
I save the living breathing one, just like I'd like to see living breathing people who suffer from debilitating, often painful, injuries / conditions benefit from science.
-
You've built a nice strawman there Neubob. How about coming back when you find some of these religious wackos in arms over this non-embryonic research?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
[snip]
It's building human parts
It's undermining god's monopoly on the creation of living tissues
i think you will find that no one ever had a monopoly on creating living tissue. humans have been able to do it since before being able to speak, reproduction itself is the fresh ceation of living tissue. unless you want to try and convince me god is responsible for every birth on the planet.
thats not to mention the body's immune system, which creates new living tissue on an hourly basis.
It amazes me that we have taken this long to even start woking out more about how our bodys work in a chemical and biological sense.
we have spent about the last 4000 years developing incredible ways of destroying the flesh and only now we are breaking into the very basics of creating flesh artificialy.
Another thing we have excelled in is currency and marketing. today there is so much crap to buy and so many 'offer of a life time for those with money' incentives thrown in our faces that we forget what life is really about and we are happy with it. but its just a huge cycle of nothing exchanging hands for nothing in return for a nice set of nothings to soon go with our other nothings in a box in the garage. The top echelons of currency do allow some fantastic experiences for the ones who play the system best but the rest of the world gets stuck with junk and little wealth.
battery companies buying the rights to new forms of battery and burning them, so they can sell a less efficient but more profitable version.
Gillette, the best a man can get! and thats because we purchased the rights to a ceramic razor that would last years, buried them, and continued to sell you crap steel blades that need replacing every other day. HEY geuss what our brand new spanking razor is out, it is called the Gillette Mach 7 it has 13 blades for the closest shave ever yet. it vibrates to help cut your hair in one stroke so she will come up to you after you shave and stroke your face for you. it also have a built in nose hair clipper and can send e-mails........
what a time wasting race we have turned out to be. how many more thousand years before we devote all our progress to widespread positives instead of pin points of power pushing so much negative onto so many others.
consider this for a minute...
in five years we managed to progress war from ranks of meatballs charging each other with rifles and boyonets with little to no aerial support to dropping an atomic bomb from an untouchable super bomber.
yet we think that even after this many centuries of existance the slight possibilty of giving people replacement body parts is a breakthrough?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You've built a nice strawman there Neubob. How about coming back when you find some of these religious wackos in arms over this non-embryonic research?
There're religious wackos out there who say that god hates America because America tolerates gays. Other religious wackos who don't let women show their faces in public.
I think I'll take my chances and assume that somewhere out there is a guy, either Christian, Muslim or of some other faith that chooses to use developments such as this as a demonstration that the end is near and hell is coming, and perhaps a call to action.
And I merely posed the question of what they will say. If anybody had said anything yet we'd be discussing that already. How about not getting offended on behalf of everyone just because I used the terms 'religious' and 'wacko' in one sentence.
-
Originally posted by GovtFlu
I have damaged nerves in my arm, stem cell research could lead to help for people like me much sooner, if not for the wackos getting in the way of science.
Who's getting in the way of what science?
Do some research instead of listening to the rhetoric.
You will find that nothing is getting in the way of adult stem cell research and it is here that discoveries/cures/advancements have been made, not with embryonic stem cell research (which is what I assume you are implying the wacko's are getting in the way of)
-
Originally posted by Neubob
How about not getting offended on behalf of everyone just because I used the terms 'religious' and 'wacko' in one sentence.
How about not using the terms "religious" and "wacko" in one sentence if you mearly wanted to pose a question as to what a group or groups might say about this breakthrough.
Ever think about that?
-
Come on Neubob, admit it. You think everyone who objects to embryonic stem cell research on moral principle is a "religous wacko". Tell me I'm wrong and I'll shutup.
-
How about this sentence?
"You must be a wacko to think that I meant this as a blanket shot against all religion."
Or this one:
"When I said religious wackos, I didn't mean that all religious people were wackos, I was refering to the worst of them."
Your knee jerk responses are a little silly, Donzo.
-
You weren't specific so I'll take that as no, you're not a wacko for objecting to embryonic research on moral principle. Now I'll shutup.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You weren't specific so I'll take that as no, you're not a wacko for objecting to embryonic research on moral principle. Now I'll shutup.
Somebody who objects to it on personal moral principal I will simply disagree with. They feel it's wrong deep down inside, fine, that I cannot argue with. I think they're wrong, but that's just me.
A person who starts quoting scripture and reciting dogma in order to explain their fear of the technology is a wacko for letting the religion do his feeling, thinking and reasoning for him.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
How about this sentence?
"You must be a wacko to think that I meant this as a blanket shot against all religion."
Or this one:
"When I said religious wackos, I didn't mean that all religious people were wackos, I was refering to the worst of them."
Your knee jerk responses are a little silly, Donzo.
No, your pathetic attempts at back-pedaling is what's a little silly.
-
religious wackos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE)
-
Are you a whacko Donzo?
-
Originally posted by moot
Are you a whacko Donzo?
I don't know Moot, you tell me.
What have I said that might make you think that?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
No, your pathetic attempts at back-pedaling is what's a little silly.
Get over yourself Donzo.
If somebody's acting like a religious wacko, a religious wacko is what that person's gonna get called. Plain and simple. If you get offended, you're probably one yourself and I have no sympathy.
-
How does my telling you whether you're a wacko or not have any bearing on whether you're actualy a whacko or not?
If you aren't one, then you aren't concerned with Neubob's wackos.. simple and transparent enough right?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Get over yourself Donzo.
If somebody's acting like a religious wacko, a religious wacko is what that person's gonna get called. Plain and simple. If you get offended, you're probably one yourself and I have no sympathy.
So by your definition anyone that would say ANYTHING against this new breakthrough would be considered a religious wacko?
You need to get over yourself, Neubob.
You started this thread with a preconceived notion that people with religious convictions would somehow object to this breakthrough.
So I assume your intent was to get people who think the way you do to jump on your little band wagon. Instead you were greeted with simple challenges to your feeble attempt to incite a "religious wacko" bashing thread. Pathetically you attempted to gloss over it as just posting for dicsussion sake.
Sad, really.
-
You're unstable, donzo. You're having this fight with yourself.
-
He's not unstable, but he can read your mind! :lol
-
Originally posted by Neubob
You're unstable, donzo. You're having this fight with yourself.
Really, how so?
-
Originally posted by moot
He's not unstable, but he can read your mind! :lol
If I'd wanted to start controversy with every religious person on this board I would have started a thread about whether it should be legal to put up '**** Jesus' billboards on the highways. A compelling 1st amendment issue.
I didn't do that. If he feels the need to get offended on the behalf of everyone, it's his life and his time.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
If I'd wanted to start controversy with every religious person on this board I would have started a thread about whether it should be legal to put up '**** Jesus' billboards on the highways. A compelling 1st amendment issue.
I didn't do that. If he feels the need to get offended on the behalf of everyone, it's his life and his time.
Neubob,
It comes back to your initial post that singled out what you call "religious wacko's". Why you had to single out a group of people (as defined by you) is a puzzle to me if you only wanted a healthy discussion on the subject.
-
He won't give up till you've gone PC and added a disclaimer to your original post that specifies what you meant to say applies to non-religious scientific wackos, too. Otherwise it just isn't fair.
-
i thought i raised some good points on the last page, as usual.. :cool:
wth is this all about now? another PC vs non-PC wankfest?
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
wth is this all about now? another PC vs non-PC wankfest?
Pretty much
-
I'll play the game you mentioned. It's not fair that developed countries are able to prolong their lives while poor countries continue to suffer. The UN must take control of this research to ensure longer lives for all. Religous wackiness enough for ya?
-
That's an interesting point of view, Iron, and a whole new thread.
-
It fits here I think. Secular humanism is a religion and while perhaps it won't be opposed to stem cell research it may very well speak out for equality of application.
-
Secular humanism does not mean socialism. I'm a humanist and I do not agree with your hypotheses AKIron. And humanism is not a religion ... way of life yes, but not a religion. In this context a belief in the supernatural is a qualifier for the word "religion" in the English language. However some humanists are almost religious in their pursuit and devotion to the humanist ideal ... but that is a different issue. Most of those people are atheists rather than humanists.
-
Ok...
Doing what you say would deprive certain people of a potential benefit simply because everyone cannot benefit from it. There will never be complete equality. Certain things will always be much more accessible to a few, while inaccessible to most. So what do we do? Control things to make sure that everyone is rationed out the same amount? That's just not practical...The quest for these privileges is one of the driving forces of competition and innovation.
-
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion Viking. However, the US Supreme Court disagrees.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm
Footnote 11] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
-
All the more reason Neubob to submit to a central world authority. Failure to do so may create such a gulf between the haves and have nots as to be intolerable in the extreme.
You did ask for wacko opposition right?
-
"As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of Humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. For more on this, see Humanism (life stance). In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to "religions", the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a "religion" for this purpose.[6] In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies. The relevant passage is in a footnote to Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). It is often alleged by fundamentalist critics of Humanism that the Supreme Court "declared Humanism to be a religion," however the Court's statement, a mere footnote at most, clearly does not in fact do so; it simply asserts an equivalency of Humanists' right to act in ways usual to a religion, such as ceremonial recognition of life's landmarks."
And in any case the US Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over me ... or the English language. In fact I think it is quite clear that proper command of the English language is not particularly widespread on your side of the pond.
-
I'd think that the current gulf between the haves and have-nots was big enough with the rampant famine and lack of basic medical needs. Not having access to freshly-grown organs seems like a relatively minor issue when compared to clean water to drink.
Waiting for the whole world to get up to speed before moving forward is a pretty nutty concept, though, I'll give you that. If we'd lived that way from the start we'd still be waiting on the third world to get themselves ready for the wheel.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
All the more reason Neubob to submit to a central world authority. Failure to do so may create such a gulf between the haves and have nots as to be intolerable in the extreme.
You did ask for wacko opposition right?
The gulf between the haves and the have nots can hardly be much greater than it is now. Thousands of people die every day from starvation and curable deceases in the third-world, while I sit here overweight in my very comfortable chair writing this post on a computer which value could feed hundreds of people for a year.
Yet, I'm ok with it. It is not my fault they die, nor is it my responsibility to save them. Those people die not because nature or faith is being unreasonable and unfair, but because their ways of life are too backwards and primitive to adapt and survive in the world today. If there is a drought, instead of digging wells or trying to otherwise solve the problem, they spend half a day praying to a rain god or another. Or perhaps sacrifice a goat ... that could have fed a family for a month. And then there is the constant flaring up of tribal wars and petty hatreds.
I feel for these people, but as long as they insist on living prehistoric lifestyles and refuse to change, there is nothing I can do for them.
-
Originally posted by Viking
"As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical and religious thought, several strains of Humanism allow it to fulfill, supplement or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. For more on this, see Humanism (life stance). In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to "religions", the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a "religion" for this purpose.[6] In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies. The relevant passage is in a footnote to Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). It is often alleged by fundamentalist critics of Humanism that the Supreme Court "declared Humanism to be a religion," however the Court's statement, a mere footnote at most, clearly does not in fact do so; it simply asserts an equivalency of Humanists' right to act in ways usual to a religion, such as ceremonial recognition of life's landmarks."
And in any case the US Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over me ... or the English language. In fact I think it is quite clear that proper command of the English language is not particularly widespread on your side of the pond.
Obviously it does not apply to you. However, your quote was not a Supreme Court statement, just in case you thought it was.
-
Ok, so we squashed those wacky humanists. What about the organ black marketers? Would you steal their livelyhood?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Obviously it does not apply to you. However, your quote was not a Supreme Court statement, just in case you thought it was.
Your Supreme Court "statement" is but a footnote, not a ruling of the court, just in case you thought it was.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Your Supreme Court "statement" is but a footnote, not a ruling of the court.
A footnote made by the court but why quibble? It means nothing to you.
-
True, but I wonder why it means so much to you? It's almost as if you feel being religious (if you indeed are religious) is so stigmatic that you have to say "you are religious too!", even though I'm not. It does not make sense to me.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Ok, so we squashed those wacky humanists. What about the organ black marketers? Would you steal their livelyhood?
You steal the livelihoods of black marketers by making it legal, and profitable to do it legally. Cheap, dependable spare parts, installed by highly-trained, licensed professionals.
-
Originally posted by Viking
True, but I wonder why it means so much to you? It's almost as if you feel being religious (if you indeed are religious) is so stigmatic that you have to say "you are religious too!", even though I'm not. It does not make sense to me.
Maybe you aren't maybe you are. Religion takes many forms and need not have a traditional god as it's focus. I take exception with those who criticize my beliefs as if they exercise no faith themselves. Still, I was just joining the "game" as Neubob suggested.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
You steal the livelihoods of black marketers by making it legal, and profitable to do it legally. Cheap, dependable spare parts, installed by highly-trained, licensed professionals.
"Cheap, dependable spare parts". You may see some resistance from the church of fitness if you're suggesting we needn't work hard for longer lives.
-
The only person that can decide whether I'm religious or not is me. The same goes for you; if you want to be called a baboon-worshiper I'll respect that. If you want to be called a Christian I'll respect that too. There are plenty of words that are perfectly acceptable to use in our modern societies, and we are modern men are we not? It is perfectly acceptable to be religious, pagan, gay etc., but it is still rude to call someone religious, pagan or gay if they do not consider themselves to be such. Nobody likes to be called something they are not simply because it is a false statement and a false label.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I don't know about "religious wackos", but the majority of Christians such as myself and others, who are against destruction of embryos for use in research and "theraputic cloning", will likely welcome this breakthrough, if it pans out. You see, I am not against stem cell research; I'm very much supportive of it. Indeed, adult and cord-blood stem cell research has actually produced scores of treatments that are in use or in the human clinical trial stages (unlike embryonic stem cell research which has produced none that I know of).
Try not to use such a broad brush next time, Neubob...it gets paint everywhere. The opposition all along is to the use of ESC's, not the research itself. The current administration is the first to actually authorize Federal funds for ESC research, so long as it doesn't destroy embryos to get there. The above research easily qualifies under that restriction, and I would support use of Fed $s for it.
I dont understand who anyone would be against the distruction of embryos that would otherwise be tossed in the garbage anyway.
which is the type of embryos they want to use.
That entire "Christaiin" argument makes no sense to me.
OK you view embryos as being babies.
so what yoru saying is you would rather throw a baby thats never going ot be born in the garbage.
Then use it to help keep someone else alive.
And you wonder why they are referred to as "religious wackos"?
BTW its not illegal to use such embryos now. Just not to use Federal funding for them
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"Cheap, dependable spare parts". You may see some resistance from the church of fitness if you're suggesting we needn't work hard for longer lives.
Why would they? Those who take care of themselves would have the most to gain from spare parts. They'd last the longest and get the most enjoyment from the physical abilities they retain.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Why would they? Those who take care of themselves would have the most to gain from spare parts. They'd last the longest and get the most enjoyment from the physical abilities they retain.
Because it's not enough to win, someone has to lose.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I dont understand who anyone would be against the distruction of embryos that would otherwise be tossed in the garbage anyway.
which is the type of embryos they want to use.
That entire "Christaiin" argument makes no sense to me.
OK you view embryos as being babies.
so what yoru saying is you would rather throw a baby thats never going ot be born in the garbage.
Then use it to help keep someone else alive.
And you wonder why they are referred to as "religious wackos"?
BTW its not illegal to use such embryos now. Just not to use Federal funding for them
Those jews were going to be gassed anyhow, why not let them contribute to the betterment of mankind through medical research?
Your last line is the one that so many crying about the lack of federal funding seem to ignore.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Those jews were going to be gassed anyhow, why not let them contribute to the betterment of mankind through medical research?
Your last line is the one that so many crying about the lack of federal funding seem to ignore.
You're confusing the infliction of suffering with a byproduct of that suffering. The medical research the nazis did during the holocaust remains a major controversy among scientists--some saying that the inhumanity of the nazis is justified by using the data, and others saying that the dead would be honored if at least something positive can be attributed to their suffering. Still others say that scientific data is valuable on its own, no matter how it is gathered.
I don't see how this applies to our situation.
And as far as there needing to be a loser, I just don't see who it is? The poor of the world? By that logic we should all just give up 1/2 to 2/3 of the food we eat to at least start to even things out. The poor of the world can aspire to many things. Just as can the middle class of the world can aspire to many things, as well as the wealthy but not quite wealthy enough to afford a new spleen can aspire to many things.
The development and perfection of this technology is a must for humanity to progress. Lengthening of the lifespan is the greatest prizes imaginable. The approach of pacing ourselves to the slowest will only guarantee that humanity never significantly profits from the potential advancements. This goes for any technology... Chemotherapy, artificial organs, anti-lock breaks and flatscreen tvs.
-
I didn't say it was a valid argument. Just guessing what the wackos might come up with.
-
You're doing a good job
-
Here's another, too much money being spent on research when it could be spent buying me crac.... er.... feeding the poor.
-
Still doing a good job. A bit of a left winger wacko now, but still effective.
-
Here's one:
Success in any other area besides embryonic stem cell research will only serve to justice the obstinance of the religious wackos. They must be completely humiliated and indoctrinated out of existence, at all costs.
-
Originally posted by KgB
religious wackos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE)
Jesus Camp...Be very afraid..i was,that was until it showed who was behind it...>>>TED HAGGARD<<<
Ted Haggard=homosexual(sodomizer)/crack smoker/hypocrite & de-frocked leader of USA Evangelicals(& ex-presidential advisor to GWB)
Back to Jesus Camp...a five year old who says he needs to be saved?Another 5 yr old in combat fatigues and face camo in part of God's army?
The best scene was when the fat lady brings out a lifesize cardboard likeness of GWB...and they start worshipping it.
These are the crackpots that oppose SCR for no other reason than that they were told it was wrong by religious entreprenours(televangelists)
BTW,the fastest growing belief in the world today is Athiesm(doubled in last 10 years)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I didn't say it was a valid argument. Just guessing what the wackos might come up with.
Thank heavens
For a moment I thought you were serious.
I would have to say that untill recently those kind of whackos could arguably be denied the right to vote here in NJ.
We had a law on the books that said the "insane or idiots" couldnt vote.
That would pass on both counts LOL
-
neubob... read what you wrote but haven't read every post in this thread.
I think that if you said "the whackos that might oppose this kind of research" then it would not have appeared that you have a hard on for people of faith who think life is precious.
I think that there would not be any more religious people opposed to this research than that of the general population. Perhaps some christian scientists but.. they oppose everything and are a small group.
lazs
-
Here's a truly evil one.
We can't do this research with private funds. It must be done with taxpayer money whether the taxpayer wants to support it or not.
gotta add a disclaimer for Drediock, no, I don't mean it seriously, there simply isn't anyone in the world this far out in screwball land.
-
I'm still not sure I understand Neubob's working definition of "religious wacko". Am I to take it that anyone who disaproves on religious grounds of destruction of embryos to support embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is a religious wacko in his book? After all, my moral objections are grounded in my belief in the sanctity of human life, which in turn are influenced to great extent by my religious views (I also believe stealing and adultery are wrong, ideas also influenced by said views). Am I a religious wacko? If so, I'm in abundant company, I'd say.
I guess a way to turn Neubob's original question around is, "Now that non-ESCR research has proven time and again to be orders of magnitude more productive than ESCR, what reason will the secular humanists find to demand the continued destruction of nacent human lives in pursuit of ESCR (and cloning, by extension)?" Or to put it another way, if I can save the notional little girl in the burning building (an inaccurate analogy, but lets go with it) without the necessity of harvesting and then destroying human embryos, is that not the preferred choice? I put it this way because the choice was never saving one or the others, but purposely putting the embryos in the fire as a precondition for (possibly, maybe, sometime in the future after spending billions of dollars) saving the little girl.
The following artical by medical ethicist Wesley Smith sums the situation up nicely.
Bush Bears Fruit
New discoveries pave the way for ethical stem-cell research, thanks to the president’s policies.
By Wesley J. Smith
Throughout his presidency, the Science Intelligentsia has castigated President Bush for placing limits on the federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR). Acting as if he had a banned ESCR, which of course he hadn’t, “the scientists” and their camp followers in the media and on Capital Hill accused the president of withholding cures from the ill in order to impose his religious beliefs on a reluctant public.
Little noted in all of the caterwauling, was that ESCR and human-cloning research (SCNT) have been funded bounteously — to the tune of nearly $2 billion. Not only has the National Institutes of Health put more than $150 million in recent years into human ESCR (about $40 annually), but according to a recent report put out by the Rockefeller Institute, to date about $1.7 billion has poured into ESCR and SCNT from philanthropic sources — and this doesn’t include the hundreds of millions granted annually by the states for cloning and ESCR experiments.
So what’s really going on here? Yes, the president’s policies have forced some research centers to set up separate labs for research on Bush-approved- and non-approved, stem-cell-research lines. But what really got under “the scientists” skin was the clarion moral message sent by the president: It is wrong to treat nascent human life as a mere natural resource to be sown, reaped, and consumed.
Big Biotech responded to the Bush policy by mounting a powerful public advocacy campaign aimed at both opening the federal spigots, and breaking the back of the moral opposition to ESCR and human cloning research. Railing against the president and supporters of his policy as “anti-science,” ESCR/SCNT advocates accused Bush of denying sick people needed medical breakthroughs. Human cloning via SCNT was redefined from “therapeutic cloning” in the advocates’ lexicon to merely “stem-cell research.” The change of term constituted a clever ruse that bundled and confused in people’s minds, the morally acceptable advances being made in adult stem-cell research, the morally dubious human cloning project, and the use of “spare” embryos for research that were “going to be discarded anyway.”
-
For awhile, the political tide ran powerfully in the cloners’ direction. In November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 71, agreeing to borrow $3 billion over ten years to pay private companies, and their business partners in major university research centers, to conduct human cloning research and ESCR. This was followed with bipartisan votes in Congress passing legislation to overturn Bush’s policy. To this, the president responded with his only veto of the first term. This year, with the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, that bit of Kabuki Theater was repeated — but the President’s policy held.
Then, almost without being perceived, the tide began to turn. Amendment 2 in Missouri — which established a constitutional right in Missouri to conduct human cloning research — was expected to cruise to an easy victory, proving that even in the Bible Belt, people wanted scientists to pursue ESCR/SCNT. But in the last two weeks of the campaign, public support for the measure plummeted in the face of the sheer power of Rush Limbaugh’s broadcasting voice in the imbroglio over actor Michael J. Fox’s pro ESCR/cloning political ads, and an effective last minute advertising campaign featuring St. Louis Cardinal baseball stars and popular actors which warned voters “don’t be bought, don’t be fooled.” The measure limped home with a bare majority, winning the day politically, but denying its sponsors of the big moral boost they expected to receive from its passage.
Meanwhile, little reported by the mainstream media, adult stem-cell/umbilical-cord blood stem-cell research advanced at an exhilarating pace. Early human trials showed that adult stem cells from olfactory tissues restored feeling to patients paralyzed with spinal-cord injury. Bone-marrow stem cells appeared to prevent the worsening of progressive MS. People with Type-1 diabetes were cured with their own adult stem cells. Increasingly, Big Biotech’s circus barker-call of CURES! CURES! CURES! seemed to be wearing thin. Then, just a few weeks ago, New Jersey voters shocked the science and political worlds by rejecting a $450 million bond measure that, like California’s Proposition 71, would have funded human cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research.
Returning to President Bush’s stem-cell funding policy; even though it was politically unpopular, the President believed wholeheartedly that the raw talent, intelligence, and creativity of the science sector would find a way to obtain pluripotent stem cells (the ability to become any cell type) through ethical means. In speeches and news conference answers about the stem-cell issue, Bush repeatedly supported existing ethical areas of research, and called upon researchers to find “alternative” methods of developing stem-cell medicine without treating nascent human life “as an experiment.” Toward this end, earlier this year Bush signed an executive order requiring the NIH to identify all sources of human pluripotent stem cells, and invited “scientists to work with the NIH, so we can add new ethically derived stem-cell lines to the list of those eligible for federal funding.”
The Science Establishment pouted and the New York Times castigated the president’s call. But other scientists had already taken up the president’s challenge, and their work was paying off. Experiments in mice by Rudolf Jaenisch at Harvard demonstrated proof of principle for “altered nuclear transfer” (ANT), a theoretical method of deriving pluripotent stem cells without creating and destroying embryos. Don Landry, Professor at Columbia University Department of Medicine, developed a way to identify dead embryos for potential use in stem-cell research — which would be no more unethical than researching on cadavers. Perhaps most excitingly, Kyoto University’s Shinya Yamanaka reprogrammed skin cells from the tails of mice, and reverted them back to an embryonic-like stem-cell state — offering tremendous hope that every therapeutic benefit scientists believed could be derived from therapeutic cloning, could instead be achieved by regressing a patient’s own tissues.
Then, last week very big news: Ian Wilmut — who opened the Pandora’s Box of human cloning with the creation of Dolly the sheep, and who two years ago obtained a license from the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to create cloned human embryos from the cells of Lou Gehrig’s disease patients — stunned the scientific world with the sudden and unexpected announcement that he had rejected human cloning research, in favor of pursuing cell reprogramming as an ethical and uncontroversial means of obtaining pluripotent cells. Wilmut told the Telegraph:
The odds are that by the time we make nuclear transfer work in humans, direct reprogramming will work too.
I am anticipating that before too long we will be able to use the Yamanaka approach to achieve the same, without making human embryos. I have no doubt that in the long term, direct reprogramming will be more productive, though we can't be sure exactly when, next year or five years into the future.
Finally, today came the Krakatau of stem-cell announcements: Reprogramming has been achieved using human cells. As reported by the journal Science, researchers reverted human connective tissue cells back to an embryonic-stem-cell-like state — and then differentiated them into all three of the body’s major tissue types. If this work pans out, there will be no need to create human cloned embryos for use in embryonic-stem-cell therapies.
I believe that many of these exciting “alternative” methods would not have been achieved but for President Bush’s stalwart stand promoting ethical stem-cell research. Indeed, had the president followed the crowd instead of leading it, most research efforts would have been devoted to trying to perfect ESCR and human-cloning research — which, despite copious funding, have not worked out yet as scientists originally hoped.
So thank you for your courageous leadership, Mr. President. Because of your willingness to absorb the brickbats of the Science Establishment, the Media Elite, and weak-kneed Republican and Democratic politicians alike — we now have the very real potential of developing thriving and robust stem-cell medicine and scientific research sectors that will bridge, rather than exacerbate, our moral differences over the importance and meaning of human life.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
BTW,the fastest growing belief in the world today is Athiesm(doubled in last 10 years)
Good. If secularist belief systems can out pace Islam humanity's future might be ok.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Good. If secularist belief systems can out pace Islam humanity's future might be ok.
I think that the most visible elements of Islam are doing a very good job of promoting atheism worldwide.
-
Oh sure, athiestic governments never murdered anyone. Well, except for a few tens of millions, but who's keeping score?
-
I'm not trying to absolve atheism of anything, I'm just saying that if there's an anti-religious movement worldwide, Islam is probably doing its fair share in promoting this thinking.
And sure, I guess it would benefit people to remember the days of Stalin, but when they're bombarded, daily, by very hard to forget acts of religious zealousness, the issue becomes a little bit more immediate and they may tend to react instinctively rather than rationally.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Oh sure, athiestic governments never murdered anyone. Well, except for a few tens of millions, but who's keeping score?
It's not like Christian or Islamic governments have had any qualms about killing people, and I think a few million more will be killed before we all finally accept each other's existence and live in some form of peace. Mostly Muslims I think.
-
Here's a wacko argument shaping up now:
Letting states decide and fund their own research direction will undermine the federal government.
"If the field turns more attention to ips cells under the umbrella of federal oversight, we may once again become the United States of Science as opposed to the Confederate States of Science," said R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102103.html?hpid=topnews
Yes, I added my own twist to this. I do understand this guy is saying that the new research may allow for federal funding taking stem cell research from the states.
-
Here's another point to ponder, in this case the cloning issues that Bush vetoed.
What I find truly distasteful is when the liberal candidates stand before an audience, stand near a diasbled/paralyzed person and have the gall to say that if we had embryonic stem cell research, this person could walk again.
Such claims are happily appluaded away and are made talking points in various campaigns.
Yet they are never held accountable for making such boldly false claims.
How is it celebrities, like Gore, Michael J Fox and others who spout such things get a "pass"? Why doesn't the media challenge such things? And those who do, are largely ignored?
-
Getting back to the original subject, when will I be able to sign up to buy a programmable Nicole Kidman clone? :)
-
Originally posted by culero
Getting back to the original subject, when will I be able to sign up to buy a programmable Nicole Kidman clone? :)
As soon as they pressure wash all the Tom Cruise spunk out of the original.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Here's another point to ponder, in this case the cloning issues that Bush vetoed.
What I find truly distasteful is when the liberal candidates stand before an audience, stand near a diasbled/paralyzed person and have the gall to say that if we had embryonic stem cell research, this person could walk again.
Such claims are happily appluaded away and are made talking points in various campaigns.
Yet they are never held accountable for making such boldly false claims.
How is it celebrities, like Gore, Michael J Fox and others who spout such things get a "pass"? Why doesn't the media challenge such things? And those who do, are largely ignored?
Such it is with politics. All parties are guilty but some more gullible than others.
-
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/08/policy_toward_s.html (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/08/policy_toward_s.html)
For those who continue to believe the hype from the hand-wringers that stem-cell research is starved for funds because of the federal government's tight-fisted funding policy, consider the following:
In 2004 the people of California voted for a proposal that would route 3 billion dollars in state monies for stem-cell research;
A study cited in the link above shows that, up to a point, for every dollar the federal government ear-marked for such research, a similar amount is lost from private donations;
Since tens of billions of dollars are being spent on this research in Great Britain, Singapore, France, and other countries, funded by their governments as well as private sources, why does it matter that the U.S. government chooses to route monies to other desperately needed research fiels in medicine?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Here's another point to ponder, in this case the cloning issues that Bush vetoed.
What I find truly distasteful is when the liberal candidates stand before an audience, stand near a diasbled/paralyzed person and have the gall to say that if we had embryonic stem cell research, this person could walk again.
Such claims are happily appluaded away and are made talking points in various campaigns.
Yet they are never held accountable for making such boldly false claims.
How is it celebrities, like Gore, Michael J Fox and others who spout such things get a "pass"? Why doesn't the media challenge such things? And those who do, are largely ignored?
I've never seen anyone say with 100% certainty that stem cell research will without a doubt lead to medical miracles.
However my doc tells me stem cell research is one of, if not "the", best hope for living breathing people like me within the next 10 years... I'll personally slaughter 1000 Petrie dishs full of cell-children, with glee, to help repair the nerve damage in my arm... those cells don't suffer every day waiting for medical science advancements, the people on stage do.
I stay as far away from religions / religious people as I can, I wish they'd afford me the same courtesy. I cant go to the abortion clinic or see my doc without some mythical opinion matter getting in my way... or worse, in my face.
Funny thing is, to me, I'll bet that stem cell research could help those tongue speaking / funky chicken convulsion people in Borat lead normal lives....
-
Originally posted by GovtFlu
I've never seen anyone say with 100% certainty that stem cell research will without a doubt lead to medical miracles.
However my doc tells me stem cell research is one of, if not "the", best hope for living breathing people like me within the next 10 years... I'll personally slaughter 1000 Petrie dishs full of cell-children, with glee, to help repair the nerve damage in my arm... those cells don't suffer every day waiting for medical science advancements, the people on stage do.
I stay as far away from religions / religious people as I can, I wish they'd afford me the same courtesy. I cant go to the abortion clinic or see my doc without some mythical opinion matter getting in my way... or worse, in my face.
Funny thing is, to me, I'll bet that stem cell research could help those tongue speaking / funky chicken convulsion people in Borat lead normal lives....
Too bad your mother didn't save you that pain with a quick trip to your favorite abortion clinic.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/08/policy_toward_s.html (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/08/policy_toward_s.html)
For those who continue to believe the hype from the hand-wringers that stem-cell research is starved for funds because of the federal government's tight-fisted funding policy, consider the following:
In 2004 the people of California voted for a proposal that would route 3 billion dollars in state monies for stem-cell research;
A study cited in the link above shows that, up to a point, for every dollar the federal government ear-marked for such research, a similar amount is lost from private donations;
Since tens of billions of dollars are being spent on this research in Great Britain, Singapore, France, and other countries, funded by their governments as well as private sources, why does it matter that the U.S. government chooses to route monies to other desperately needed research fiels in medicine?
This dude answered your question, the research is going on anyway, all over the world.. the voters of Cali, however, have been obstructed by litigation from the wackos.
It looks like the objections of whoever don't hold much water in the world... these folks need to admit defeat, and let the researchers / doctors do their job with public $$ the people have voted for... I'm sure they have plenty of other issues to protest / obstruct in court... in the name of the lord.
Our fed .gov is accomplishing nothing but scoring political points with some extreme party faction, which is more important that science, of course...yeeehaw. Said faction is accomplishing little more than obstructing the will of the people here in Cali.
It might mean people like me have to fly to Singapore for treatment?.. oh yea, sounds peachy... but I'd rather drive 30 min to UCLA and be home for lunch.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Too bad your mother didn't save you that pain with a quick trip to your favorite abortion clinic.
Speaking of my favorite one, last time I was there, I swear the cuddly little aborted fella laying peacefully next to the ruler... looked like me!
I was of course offended at being shown a poster sized pic of a naked child.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Too bad your mother didn't save you that pain with a quick trip to your favorite abortion clinic.
Typical answer. I just have to say that research like this will sure as hell get us alot further in life than prayer.
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
Typical answer. I just have to say that research like this will sure as hell get us alot further in life than prayer.
Research doesn't help people like Flu's little brother, or flu for that matter though brain transplants may some day become a reality.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Research doesn't help people like Flu's little brother, or flu for that matter though brain transplants may some day become a reality.
Do you honestly think that? More **** like this aand I'm seriously considering voting liberal.
-
Guv, the only reason you would have to go to Singapore to avail yourself of the benefits of stem-cell research is if they were to have a monopoly on the treatments that were developed.
That will never happen, for the simple reason that most of that research is being done by scientists from the U.S. and Great Britain and several other nations. If you think Singapore's government can keep control of the results or prevent the knowledge from spreading across the globe like wildfire you are sadly mistaken.
Perhaps you missed the part in the article I cited about the overall funding for research remaining basically the same no matter how much the government donates? Or you didn't understand it? When the government donates, private donors reduce their giving, as do the states.
Stem-cell research funding world wide is in the tens of billions of dollars....with almost no success to show for the vast expenditures. Would more money bring about a breakthrough? I seriously doubt it. Only adult stem-cell research has shown any concrete results. Fetal stem-cell research is proving to be a dead end...and will likely remain so in spite of the massive funds already being utilized.
I have no problem with research that benefits the suffering, but I do have a problem with amoral, if it benefits me anything goes, damn-the-torpedoes-and-full-speed-ahead attitudes about research utilizing the fetal stem-cells of the unborn.
Donate your own money if you want it badly enough....just don't demand that MY tax money be used for it.
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
Do you honestly think that? More **** like this aand I'm seriously considering voting liberal.
Stupid is as stupid does.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Stupid is as stupid does.
Looks like you already did.
-
Nothing personal there mentalguy, just don't know how else to describe someone who would change their vote to avoid voting with someone they disagree with.
-
Jeez AKIron ... just how low are you going to sink?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Then, just a few weeks ago, New Jersey voters shocked the science and political worlds by rejecting a $450 million bond measure that, like California’s Proposition 71, would have funded human cloning and embryonic-stem-cell research.
A really REALLY good example on how a story or part of a story can be spun to make a reporters point.
Yes it is true we voted down the $450 mil bond measure.
but it had far far more to do with our $4.5 billion dollar deficit then being against stem cell research
NJ is among the wealthiest states in the nation
NJ is also the most densely populated state.
We have among if not the highest property taxes in the nation.
One of the highest sales taxes in the nation (8%)
Yet we still have a $4.5 billion dollar deficit. (one of the highest in the nation)
And now they want to put us even farther in the hole without showing in any way shape or form how they plan on paying for it. Or to whom and where exactly the money is going to go.
Considering we are proving to have one of the most corrupt state governments in the nation. Not to mention a governor who seems to think he is state emperor. We'd really kinda like to know that part.
While property tax relief is a huge political issue here we also voted against using a small portion of the recently increased sales tax (was 7%) for property tax relief
It also isnt mentioned that we have already invested $270 million into Stem cell research. so to say or insinuate we as a state are against it. Is really nothing short of an outright lie.
Yes we approved a bond issuance of $200 million to support historic and farmland preservation. But at least we can see where that money is spent.
and Farms at least provide a source of tax revenue
I know of very few people who are against stem cell research including embryonic.
Certainly much much less then I do people who support it.
those who I know of who voted against this measure by FAR did so purely out of economic concerns. Not ideological ones.
We turned it down by and large because we feel we have already invested enough money into this venture for now. With little to no financial return on the investment.
And we have enough dept and simply would not like to needlessly add more to it when the state government has proved they obviously cant seem to manage the debt we have now.
Your not going to stop the bleeding by opening another vein
-
Originally posted by Viking
Jeez AKIron ... just how low are you going to sink?
I'm not the one advocating killing babies. In fact, I'm somewhat opposed to it. I figure everyone ought to have the same shot at life that you and I have had. Maybe it's just me but I don't get how that is sinking low?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm not the one advocating killing babies. In fact, I'm somewhat opposed to it. I figure everyone ought to have the same shot at life that you and I have had. Maybe it's just me but I don't get how that is sinking low?
I think he just doesn't consider a cluster consisting of a couple dozen cells a baby. He doesn't think that cluster feels pain, can think and reason, or contains a soul (taking a major leap on that last one). To him it's just something with the consistency of toothpaste--as it is to many people.
He was not advocating the termination of 2nd or 3rd trimester fetuses, they're simply assuming that in the absence of a central nervous system, not to mention any other discernible organs or tissues, you do not have a person.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I think he just doesn't consider a cluster consisting of a couple dozen cells a baby. He doesn't think that cluster feels pain, can think and reason, or contains a soul (taking a major leap on that last one). To him it's just something with the consistency of toothpaste--as it is to many people.
He was not advocating the termination of 2nd or 3rd trimester fetuses, they're simply assuming that in the absence of a central nervous system, not to mention any other discernible organs or tissues, you do not have a person.
Who are you talking about?
What was Viking talking about?
Prior to my last response to Viking my last few responses were to govtflu and mentalguy. Do you guys read these threads?
-
I assumed that you were upset with Govtflu because he said he'd gladly murder a petrie dish worth of cell children if it meant curing the nerve damage in his arm. That was what I was responding to.
I could be wrong though. I did attempt to post a log of my getting drunk last night, so I'm not very smart.
-
I've come up with all the ridiculous wacko arguments I can think of. I've yet to see one from you Neubob. I hereby declare myself the winner of your silly little game and not so graciously bow out.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I assumed that you were upset with Govtflu because he said he'd gladly murder a petrie dish worth of cell children if it meant curing the nerve damage in his arm. That was what I was responding to.
I could be wrong though. I did attempt to post a log of my getting drunk last night, so I'm not very smart.
I guess you missed his complaint about being inconvenienced every time he visited an abortion clinic? What is that about? Does he work there as a baby killer or is he a she and just very promiscuous? I took it as calloused joke and responded in kind.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I've come up with all the ridiculous wacko arguments I can think of. I've yet to see one from you Neubob. I hereby declare myself the winner of your silly little game and not so graciously bow out.
I already gave you credit for the creativity you put into your arguments. I thought they were plausible, original and very appropriate given the topic.
You can bow out with grace, as far as I'm concerned... But I did offer a coupe of my own. Early on. If you recall, I mentioned something about how certain religious types may find fault with the concept of humans breaking God's monopoly on the creation of new life. There were a couple of others too. Not too compelling, but examples nonetheless.
As for his crack about the abortion clinic, I didn't really get where that was coming from. I kinda filtered it out, assuming that it was the kind of nonsensical tripe that's as common here as salt is in the ocean.
-
Hmmm.. A one armed handicap who regularly goes to a Spermbank, CA. abortion clinic... that's a tough one to crack.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Guv, the only reason you would have to go to Singapore to avail yourself of the benefits of stem-cell research is if they were to have a monopoly on the treatments that were developed.
Not necessarily.
I have "faith" in the ability of the lunatic fringe to obstruct progress in the US with lawsuits / 'fetus in a jar' rallies and all that. And I'm sure they'll use the tried and tested intimidation tactic of going out of their way to shout their opinions at people when they go to the docs office... nobody knows how accessible a stem cell treatment will be here in the US if zealot panties get in a wad.
I might not be forced into travel, but I'll bet I'd have to wait a lot longer... I'd rather get treated in Singapore than wait for the politicians and fetus in a jar types to hash out the ethics of what is basically none of their business.
If they break out a new stem cell derived radical treatment in Singapore tomorrow, I'll be there next week rather than sit around hoping a bunch of opinionated strangers won't get in my way.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I guess you missed his complaint about being inconvenienced every time he visited an abortion clinic? What is that about? Does he work there as a baby killer or is he a she and just very promiscuous? I took it as calloused joke and responded in kind.
I live a lifestyle you're obviously not aware of; that of a sexually active male... you should try it.... with a girl.
You don't have to be a stud either, just be willing to buy the same chick a few shots of Jagermeister at last call and offer to drive her home by braille w/ the promise of a few bumps...
As Stanhope would say "I look at a cold sore like a skate boarder looks at a skinned knee"... I enjoy all that fun stuff that turns urine samples cloudy. Plan B pills, a few abortions, trips to buy dry ice every 3 months... nobody gets hurt or forced into doing anything they don't want to do, its all legal... and none of the church's business. Plus it leads to some good stories, a-lot more interesting than who won the church bbq bingo game or how old Ida saw the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Yet some church folk show up all angry with posters of naked children, up in my face shouting opinions I obviously don't agree with, or care about... all while I'm legally minding my own business... thats what I take issue with.
If that makes me a baby killer thats going to hell, fine, I accept... do I get a t-shirt or something?
-
Originally posted by GovtFlu
If that makes me a baby killer thats going to hell, fine, I accept... do I get a t-shirt or something?
Killin' babies is what makes one a baby killer. Not much of a challenge so no t-shirt. Neither I nor anyone else on this earth decides your afterlife.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Killin' babies is what makes one a baby killer. Not much of a challenge so no t-shirt. Neither I nor anyone else on this earth decides your afterlife.
Just to be clear... you guys do know that stem-cells are in fact CELLS... not children right?
I mean they're not even zygotes yet for pete sake
-
Are we banning condoms too?
-
The man in Waco, Texas, claiming to be Christ and leading his followers into a battle with police, Muslims who bombed the World Trade Center, David Koresh who claimed he owned more then 140 wives and claimed he was entitled to all women in his compound, those are what you call "religious wackos". When one does not believe in abortion or using the embryo of an aborted fetus for medical research, that does not make them a "religious wacko".
We can have many debates as to ones beliefs, but the reality of it all is we are all given chose. Chose to believe in what we feel is right or wrong. I am not for using fetus embryo's, but I am for stem cell research that does not require a aborted fetus to obtain it.
I have a crushed ulnar nerve which is not fixable by medical standards, the pain is sometimes unbareable. I would rather live with the pain then have a fetus aborted. Knowing there is a new breakthrough using skin, is exciting news!
-
There's nothing arguable about belief.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Just to be clear... you guys do know that stem-cells are in fact CELLS... not children right?
I mean they're not even zygotes yet for pete sake
Just to be clearer, the casual reference to abortion clinics is what prompted my comment.
-
Originally posted by GovtFlu
I live a lifestyle you're obviously not aware of; that of a sexually active male... you should try it.... with a girl.
You don't have to be a stud either, just be willing to buy the same chick a few shots of Jagermeister at last call and offer to drive her home by braille w/ the promise of a few bumps...
As Stanhope would say "I look at a cold sore like a skate boarder looks at a skinned knee"... I enjoy all that fun stuff that turns urine samples cloudy. Plan B pills, a few abortions, trips to buy dry ice every 3 months... nobody gets hurt or forced into doing anything they don't want to do, its all legal... and none of the church's business. Plus it leads to some good stories, a-lot more interesting than who won the church bbq bingo game or how old Ida saw the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Yet some church folk show up all angry with posters of naked children, up in my face shouting opinions I obviously don't agree with, or care about... all while I'm legally minding my own business... thats what I take issue with.
If that makes me a baby killer thats going to hell, fine, I accept... do I get a t-shirt or something?
Do you have any sober friends? :rofl