Barihawk Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 So you've never heard of the draft before have you? It hasn't been used in 40 years, and with the state of modern warfare will likely never be used again. I am sure that Apinagez was referring to Iraq with his comment, since he compared it to fundamentalists...All 4 wars this century that had a draft were started by Democrats anyways. Well it's pretty difficult. You could use animals. But then there will be people against that. What kind of solution can you find that pleases everyone and is effective, please tell me. It's not effective at all, considering you are working with completely different gene pairs and genetic coding. You can cure diabetes in field mice all you want, but without humans, you can not cure humans. Besides, nothing can ever be accomplished without someone disagreeing. It's human nature to have a free will, and God preserve that nature. I would be terrified of a world where everyone agreed with everyone else. That leads to fascism. The world always needs a little discontent to save freedom. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deloriagod Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 They use embyos no more than week old, in laboratory enviorments. And also, what does it matter if you kill a few fetuses, your saving a generation. Any volunteers? I'm more than willing to get a girl pregnant for the progression of science! : Call me when you need me :thumbsup: Internet Marketing For Newbies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Oh and what if the next embryo had the potential to cause the world's self-annihilation. Complete nuclear warfare. What if that child became the next Rembrandt, David, Mother Theresa, Diana, Gallileo, Einstein? Or he/she could be the next Hitler, Stalin, or other threat. Causality is futile, for this reason. You simply do not know what the child will become. Therefore, you can not pass judgement on them for crimes they have not committed. Nor can you praise them for glorious deeds that have yet to be done. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 No. It's accidental abortion. A miscarriage is unintentional, whereas an abortion is planned. Calling it a different name won't change the circumstances. However the outcomes are still the same, it's an abortion. A person's body killing a foetus is no different from a person killing a foetus, you still have a dead foetus. Lifestyle choice such as obesity, caffeine, alcohol, physical harm, aspirin, ibuprofen etc. can all elevate miscarriage. You do have some control over the circumstances; negligence of the mother does result in 'accidental abortion' which can be as planned as a regular abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Pod, what about miscarriages due to diabetes, cancer, and other diseases/conditions which are genetic? What if the mother comes down with a major virus that nearly kills her, and kill the child? I really doubt any miscarriages are "intentionally" done as opposed to abortion, which is only done to get rid of the child. Let's also not forget the emotions of the mother. In an abortion, the "mother" sometimes fosters feelings of remorse towards her actions, but generally "gets over it". Mothers who suffer miscarriages are generally scarred for life. The same goes for mis-births. I almost died when I was born, due to my mother's diabetes. If the doctors had not been ready, I wouldn't be typing this. They were ready because 1 year before my brother died after 1 day, due to birth complications. My mother never really recovered from the loss. I recently was given a box of some of her most cherished belongings. Among them was a baby book, "Mama's little brag book", designed to show off pictures of the newborn baby. Instead of having an infant in a crib where it should be, my brother was shown in a small coffin. I can only imagine how much it hurt her. So please, never compare those two again. They are nowhere near alike, physically, mentally, and emotionally. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdub Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Sorry if I'm incorrect, but aren't there stem-cells available in umbilical cords that would ordinarily be discarded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrencekill Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 So you've never heard of the draft before have you? It hasn't been used in 40 years, and with the state of modern warfare will likely never be used again. I am sure that Apinagez was referring to Iraq with his comment, since he compared it to fundamentalists...All 4 wars this century that had a draft were started by Democrats anyways. Well it's pretty difficult. You could use animals. But then there will be people against that. What kind of solution can you find that pleases everyone and is effective, please tell me. It's not effective at all, considering you are working with completely different gene pairs and genetic coding. You can cure diabetes in field mice all you want, but without humans, you can not cure humans. Besides, nothing can ever be accomplished without someone disagreeing. It's human nature to have a free will, and God preserve that nature. I would be terrified of a world where everyone agreed with everyone else. That leads to fascism. The world always needs a little discontent to save freedom. If he was, he should have made specific that he was talking about voluteer soldiers. It's hard to rationalize when you think of one thing and the other person means another. I did not say animal testing is effective. I said animals could be used. In no way did I say, animal testing is effective. Please reread the post (and the part about stem cells you left out). Well then as long as majority agrees, just continue with the research. Oh and what if the next embryo had the potential to cause the world's self-annihilation. Complete nuclear warfare. What if that child became the next Rembrandt, David, Mother Theresa, Diana, Gallileo, Einstein? Or he/she could be the next Hitler, Stalin, or other threat. Causality is futile, for this reason. You simply do not know what the child will become. Therefore, you can not pass judgement on them for crimes they have not committed. Nor can you praise them for glorious deeds that have yet to be done. Wow... Nice. I could not have put that better myself. You cannot judge a person by what they have not done. (or my paraphrase of your statement) Sorry if I'm incorrect, but aren't there stem-cells available in umbilical cords that would ordinarily be discarded? Not IMO, but you gota do some research on that. Stem cells are cells that can turn into any other cell to make up that person's or animal's organ or cells or possibly the thing itself. Now think of it this way, can the cells in the umbilical cord turn into some other kind of cell and you'll see how I arrived to my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOV Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 And VOV, at the time of the Stem Cell ban, research was being done from fetuses...mostly aborted ones. No form of stem cell research has been banned. The law Clinton signed just made sure that no government funds would support embryonic stem cell research. In the late 1990's scientists were testing samples of fetal tissue donated by various medical facilities. The cultures derived from said tissue are much less desirable than the ones provided by embryonic or even adult tissue samples. Also, to the people who believe that these embryos are human; Are you not bothered by the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of "people" sitting in cold storage? "People" who, in all likelyhood, will never be implanted into a surrogate and freed from their current prison. Sorry if I'm incorrect, but aren't there stem-cells available in umbilical cords that would ordinarily be discarded? Yes, there are also stem cells derived from adult organs. However, they can only differentiation [change] into a limited number of tissue types. Whereas embryonic stem cells are believed to be able to differentiate into any type of human tissue. In addition, any transplants done with such samples would run a huge risk of rejection. The recipient of another person's cells would, in all likelyhood, be forced to take immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their lives. It is believed that embryonic stem cells can be tailored to each host through theraputic cloning techniques to prevent any rejection. I know the price. I pay it gladly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barihawk Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Sorry if I'm incorrect, but aren't there stem-cells available in umbilical cords that would ordinarily be discarded? Your fingernails have stem cells. The trouble is, umbilical cords are 9 months old when you have access to them. Scientists need the cells to be less than a few weeks old. Well then as long as majority agrees, just continue with the research. The thing is, the majority does not agree. It's about 48/52 in national polls, leaning towards against research. Why would they keep fertilized embryos in fertilization clinics? Those fertilized eggs are made to order. Unless you are referring to sperm in donor clinics, in which case it's just a bit of protein with DNA in it. Same goes for the eggs there. They have not been fertilized, and therefore life has not begun. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 No. It's accidental abortion. A miscarriage is unintentional, whereas an abortion is planned. Calling it a different name won't change the circumstances. However the outcomes are still the same, it's an abortion. A person's body killing a foetus is no different from a person killing a foetus, you still have a dead foetus. Lifestyle choice such as obesity, caffeine, alcohol, physical harm, aspirin, ibuprofen etc. can all elevate miscarriage. You do have some control over the circumstances; negligence of the mother does result in 'accidental abortion' which can be as planned as a regular abortion. Well, in my opinion, ends don't justify means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrencekill Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Well then as long as majority agrees, just continue with the research. The thing is, the majority does not agree. It's about 48/52 in national polls, leaning towards against research. Why would they keep fertilized embryos in fertilization clinics? Those fertilized eggs are made to order. Unless you are referring to sperm in donor clinics, in which case it's just a bit of protein with DNA in it. Same goes for the eggs there. They have not been fertilized, and therefore life has not begun. Well that sucks. Why not research? Employ all possible resources. If an abortion has already occured why not use it. I don't understand some people. If you cut down a tree, you might as well use it for something. I think he's refering to the possible people in there. It's still living in a way, but it's not considered a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death_By_Pod Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 I really doubt any miscarriages are "intentionally" done as opposed to abortion, which is only done to get rid of the child. Let's also not forget the emotions of the mother. In an abortion, the "mother" sometimes fosters feelings of remorse towards her actions, but generally "gets over it". Mothers who suffer miscarriages are generally scarred for life. So please, never compare those two again. They are nowhere near alike, physically, mentally, and emotionally. The act of abortion is to induce a miscarriage, the difference between regular abortion and spontaneous abortion is whether it is voluntary or not whether a miscarriage occurs or not. Of course spontaneous abortion occurs more often then not through natural means, 30% of all conceived ova end in spontaneous abortion in the first month or two (without the mother even knowing, so how on earth can she be scarred for life). However non-natural means still cause spontaneous abortion. Around 5-10% of women are physically abused during pregnancy and these things do cause things like miscarriage and still born babies. You would be mad to say none of this abuse was non-intentional. A similar thing could be said about people who take drugs or are obese, some people might not know the consequences; however many people do and continue to purposefully endanger the foetuses life when the simple option is not to drink, do drugs and to be more careful with your weight for 9 short months. Many cases might not be intentional however if you want an abortion and you don't want to do it at the clinic (in order to save face, religious reasons etc.), poisoning your child or falling down the stairs might be your answer. Closing down abortion clinics and harassing patients of the few clinics remaining isn't going to help the situation. If someone wants an abortion they are going to do it even if they need to cause spontaneous abortion rather then going to a clinic. Well, in my opinion, ends don't justify means. Yep and the other half of the opinion is that ends are justified no matter the means. There is no reason why one should be any more valid then the other. Making a law or a judgement which can drastically affect people's lives due to such an opinion, is quite an injustice to the many people who don't hold that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
How2PK Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Hell! Why not! :thumbsup: Signature by Maurice SendakWhen the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 I'm actually amazed by people who argue against stem cell research, the potential it has to save lives and end so much suffering is incredible. So yeah, i'm all for it. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmage099 Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 I agree with the reseach. The only probelm I see is scientists might go too far. People might just start banging eachother so they can have stem-cells....that's not right. Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewl_Sabre Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/poli ... 10626.html This recent poll shows that Stem Cell research does, in fact, have wide public support. And please, no one call the legitimacy of an ABC poll into question. New York Times - maybe. But not ABC. :wink: I confess to not having read every single post in this thread, but it seems like somehow a debate got started about miscarriage vs. abortion? I'm not really sure how either of those relate directly to stem cell research, as none of the stem cells come from abortions or miscarriages. All eggs and spem are harvested separately, and conception happens in a labratory. And I think I heard someone bring up that stem cells are NOT thrown away annually? They are. It isn't an on-demand production basis, although that could be a target of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 "What if someone said Promise lies ahead Hopes are high in certain scientific circles Life won't have to end You could walk again What if someone said Problems lie ahead They've uncovered something highly controversial The right to life is strong Can't you see it's wrong Human kind has reached a turning point Poised for conflict at ground zero Ready for a war Do we look to our unearthly guide Or the white coat heroes Searching for a cure Turn to the light Don't be frightened of the shadows it creates Turn to the light Turning away would be a terrible mistake Anarchistic moral vision Industries of death Facing violent opposition Unmolested breath Ethic inquisitions breed Antagonistic views Right wing soundbyte premonitions In a labyrinth of rules Are you justified Are you justified Are you justified Justified in taking Life to save life Life to save life Life to save life Life to save life This embryonic clay Wrapped in fierce debate Would be thrown away Or otherwise discarded Some of us believe It may hold the key To treatment of disease And secrets highly guarded Are you justified Are you justified Are you justified Justified in taking Life to save life Life to save life Life to save life Life to save life Humankind has reached a turning point Poised for conflict at ground zero Ready for a war Do we look to our unearthly guide Or to white coat heroes Searching for a cure Turn to the light Don't be frightened of the shadows it creates Turn to the light Turning away would be a terrible mistake We're reaching But have we gone too far Harvesting existence Only to destroy Carelessly together We are sliding Someone else's future Four days frozen still Someone else's fate We are deciding Miracle potential Sanctity of life Faced against each other We're divided Should we push the boundaries Or should we condemn Moral guilt and science Have collided Turn to the light We defy our own mortality these days Turn to the light Pay attention to the questions we have raised" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTear Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 I'm not only talking about soldiers, I'm talking about civil deaths. I may support wars for just causes, but I do not laud the deaths of innocents. Luckily, modern technology allows us to be more picky about who we kill. Unfortunately, mistakes in that technology lead to civilian losses. In addition, our fight in the Middle East has seen the death of many civilians not due to American attacks, but attacks by insurgents and Al-Queda bombers who simply do not care who they kill. Likewise, I support the search for a cure for Diabetes (my mother died from it, and I will probably have it), but what about the innocent bystanders without a say in their deaths? In war, it is the civilians who have no choice in their death. In this matter, it is the unborn (and don't give me that "life begins at birth" bullhockey, it's not like the Ob/Gyn breathes life into the child when it exits the womb by smacking it's butt.) who are casualities...of what, pray tell? Their parents not caring enough about them to let them live? The child has no say in their death before "life". Any general worth his rank in the history of man who has gone to war has done so knowing there will be casaulties. I'm fairly sure most of them were even perfectly aware that among these casaulties there would innocent civilian bystanders. As of late in the history of man we've taken to minimize these casaulties, because as our technology improves, our ability to inflict savagery on these civilians just gets better and better. In any case, no matter how just a war you believe yourself to be fighting, only a fool goes to a war expecting there to be no civilian casaulties. A general goes to war knowing, fully and well, that there will be civilian casaulties. Thinking, living human beings with their own lives, thoughts, emotions, hopes and dreams. Eradicated as collateral damage to a just cause. You're willing to support the unwilling sacrifice of these lives for a just cause, yet you oppose the unwilling sacrifice of cellstructures without anything remotely resembling the neural framework able to from something remotely akin to the thought processes of what a newborn baby will have. The fact that these cell structures tends to come from labarotary performed inseminations (I don't know where this whole abortion thing came from, but... I'm fairly sure the bet way to get stem cells 4-5 days old does *not* involve a woman having an abortion. And if it did, the abortion would most likely been had anyway. Toss me a source someone?) at fertility clinics - where their potential to be either a new Stalin or Einstein is exactly zero, like with most aborted featuses - is just icing on the cake. You can look me in the eye and tell me the lives of thousand of civilians was worth it in Iraq because of the tens of the thousand of lives Saddam Hussein could've taken if he'd remained in power, yet you'd oppose the sacrifice of unwanted cell clusters produced - not breed - for the specific purpose of science, to save millions. I think that's downright grotesque. (And insane... Ask your friend just how the two would be technically connected, so you can explain it to me. 'cause quite frankly, no matter what classes your friend's taking, it makes to sense to me. Manipulating a genome - and by the way, I'm fairly sure the human genome is fully charted, we know what goes where, we just don't know what it does - in a grown invidivual is just... Well... Not likely anywhere else but X-men, no matter how much science we perform. I'll readily buy modifying the genome of a blastocyt so that when the child has grown up, he'd be more intelligent that natural, and I do think that poses a serious legal and ethical question. But that's still genetic manipulation, not stem cells.) -This message was deviously brought to you by: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompey_spud Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 after reading a lot of the posts here, i have come to the conclusion that a lot of the debators here dont seem to be able to differentiate between human and person. A human is simply a homo sapien (sapien). A person is something completely different. A person must be able to communicate with other people. They must be able to support themselves to an extent. They must be sentinent. An embryo is none of these things and therefore is not counted as a person. According to nature it is a human, but according to society it is not a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now