Is something good just because it saves lives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If something unexpected hits, say your close family member, parent, brother... Like a totally unexpected hurricane, non-inherited brain disorder/disease, would you simply agree it's a way of "population control" instead of trying to find out every single way to prevent it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, those people hit by "population control" have lives just as valuable as yours, with friends and families and futures. If they can be saved, it's the highest possible good.

 

 

 

Is something good just because it saves lives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that's one reason I do not agree with people getting surgery after they are 'past their prime'. They take up more resources they can produce. Therefore, they are useless to our society as a whole. I mean I love my grandma, but if she had some kind of severe illness, I would let God take her (This has not happened to me, so I don't know if I would actually do that). If it is something simple such as a cold, I would obviously help her get better. We have over 6,000,000,000 people on this Earth.

 

 

 

 

Is something good just because it saves lives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If something unexpected hits, say your close family member, parent, brother... Like a totally unexpected hurricane, non-inherited brain disorder/disease, would you simply agree it's a way of "population control" instead of trying to find out every single way to prevent it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, those people hit by "population control" have lives just as valuable as yours, with friends and families and futures. If they can be saved, it's the highest possible good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, I don't know why you are pointing this towards me by saying things like "have lives just as valuable as yours." I made it very clear that I am not making a personal point. If you think that saving people no matter what is the highest possible good - great! I'm not arguing that. Just giving some thought out there that you can choose to agree with or disagree with.

 

 

 

 

 

Is something good just because it saves lives?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If something unexpected hits, say your close family member, parent, brother... Like a totally unexpected hurricane, non-inherited brain disorder/disease, would you simply agree it's a way of "population control" instead of trying to find out every single way to prevent it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, those people hit by "population control" have lives just as valuable as yours, with friends and families and futures. If they can be saved, it's the highest possible good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, I don't know why you are pointing this towards me by saying things like "have lives just as valuable as yours." I made it very clear that I am not making a personal point. If you think that saving people no matter what is the highest possible good - great! I'm not arguing that. Just giving some thought out there that you can choose to agree with or disagree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither am I making a personal point. I'm wondering if you accept it as 'population control'.

Neither am I making a personal point. I'm wondering if you accept it as 'population control'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope.

You said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As soon as sources were quoted, you changed your tune. I never said why medical benefits haven't been made - I just said they hadn't and you denied it. However, after I gave you a source to find and insane quoted a source for you - you changed your tune.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I forgot where, but there was a woman from Canada that was on TV who claimed to feel some of her legs after going to China (Im not sure) to get stem cells implanted in her cerebral spinal fluid. Again Im not too sure about it... I'll look it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My biology proff always says when it comes to medical ethics - I believe it was quoted from Genesis - Its a true living being when blood is introduced to the embryo, which is somewhere between 14-20 days after it embeds itself on the uterine wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOOM - http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5821.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hope??

 

You said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure emryotic stem cells have had success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As soon as sources were quoted, you changed your tune. I never said why medical benefits haven't been made - I just said they hadn't and you denied it. However, after I gave you a source to find and insane quoted a source for you - you changed your tune.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I forgot where, but there was a woman from Canada that was on TV who claimed to feel some of her legs after going to China (Im not sure) to get stem cells implanted in her cerebral spinal fluid. Again Im not too sure about it... I'll look it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My biology proff always says when it comes to medical ethics - I believe it was quoted from Genesis - Its a true living being when blood is introduced to the embryo, which is somewhere between 14-20 days after it embeds itself on the uterine wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOOM - http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5821.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hope??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stem cells don't have to be embryonic, by the way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The verses you're referring to are in Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12.

Embryos are the most effective way. But I remember that there is some stem cells which are in adult bodies somewhere (forget where, I have it somewhere in my notes) which would side step the whole debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonetheless as time stands embryos are the prime source inwhich we could effectively research it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not up in my Bible studies :-#

Embryos are the most effective way. But I remember that there is some stem cells which are in adult bodies somewhere (forget where, I have it somewhere in my notes) which would side step the whole debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonetheless as time stands embryos are the prime source inwhich we could effectively research it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not up in my Bible studies :-#

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you read the above posts, where insane quotes a reference for you, you would know embryonic stem cell research has yielded no results - but adult stem cell research has.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research.

Didn't read... more interested in what you were posting.

Didn't read... more interested in what you were posting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's weird - because what I've been posting has to do with that. Seems you'd make a little more effort in knowing what you're talking about than that.

All I read was stem cell research didn't prove to be effective, well atleast what I got out of it.

 

 

 

I guess were on the same page without me even knowing.

stem-cell research is just going to lead to overpopulation which is very bad for our planet, and ultimately very bad for humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why blame stem cell research, overpopulation is already happening, already inevitable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cant say i agree with the argument that any healing leads to overpopulation and is bad for the huma race (cant remember who said it, sorry) why dont i agree? becuase Jesus healed people too, and healing the sick makes them better and more able to participate in society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also - your against stem cell research, and i suppose abortion, yes? what if there was no abortion at all, what about no contraception, either. How would the population of earth look then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they're the SAME cells we get from our spinal fluid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from memory, i dont believe this is true. the cells you speak of are adult stem cells, they are already partially differentiated which means what cells they can turn into is severely limited. on the other hand, embryonic stem cells can turn into any human bodily cell, they have much more potential.

 

stem-cell research is just going to lead to overpopulation which is very bad for our planet, and ultimately very bad for humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why blame stem cell research, overpopulation is already happening, already inevitable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cant say i agree with the argument that any healing leads to overpopulation and is bad for the huma race (cant remember who said it, sorry) why dont i agree? becuase Jesus healed people too, and healing the sick makes them better and more able to participate in society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also - your against stem cell research, and i suppose abortion, yes? what if there was no abortion at all, what about no contraception, either. How would the population of earth look then?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man! Learn to read! I already said that it's not my argument against stem-cell research - just giving some ideas I wanted to throw out to see what people think. I have said multiple times that I don't have a problem with stem-cell research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further, the population has generally been static until the technological leaps we have made in living healthy and healing.

I don't understand why people need to play God? I can understand why someone that is crippled would want to walk again. I just don't understand how that has anything to taking life into your own hands. Obviously a fetus is life. Does anyone have a right to take anyone else's life into their own hands before or after its finished devolping? Example The Truman Show.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is a fetus any different then a baby? THEY ARE BOTH HELPLESS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry my post is random but I feel all of it is very important to the topic.

^ So you know - the method is not to harm a fetus as one would do during abortion, but it is an embryo. The time at which the sperm as hit the egg and a few days have passed. It's just a bundle of cells.

^ So you know - the method is not to harm a fetus as one would do during abortion, but it is an embryo. The time at which the sperm as hit the egg and a few days have passed. It's just a bundle of cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're just a large bundle of cells, by the way.

I wasn't trying to justify the act, just stating what it is...

I wasn't trying to justify the act, just stating what it is...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you were implying that "a bundle of cells" is less than a fetus or human. You said they are different and then said an embryo is "just a bunch of cells." But that isn't anything different than a fetus. You didn't lie, but you were purposefully misleading.

Okay guys, keep it clean... It's a good topic, but if you keep attacking each other at this rate, the topic will go terrible. I'm not in the mood to clean out another 1+ of flaming posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're going to debate fine, but personal attacks and vandettas is another story. Take it outside rather than hijacking the thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue as you were, ladies and gents.

 

 

 

But you were implying that "a bundle of cells" is less than a fetus or human. You said they are different and then said an embryo is "just a bunch of cells." But that isn't anything different than a fetus. You didn't lie, but you were purposefully misleading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blastocysts, where embryonic stem cells are extracted from are very different from our bundle of cells. In the case of humans (and foetuses) the cells have been differentiated into specific cell types, whereas in blastocysts the cells are undifferentiated. To say that we are just a bundle of cells in comparison to a blastocyst is much more misleading.

If you read the above posts, where insane quotes a reference for you, you would know embryonic stem cell research has yielded no results - but adult stem cell research has.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No approved medical treatment isn't quite the same thing as no scientifically significant results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And secondly, you'll find that the population of earth has not skyrocketed as a result of improved medical treatment, but as a result of improved agriculturual treatment. Medical treatment has played a part, certainly, but nowhere near as much as industry and agriculture. After all, why do you think the biggest population increases occur in countries where a wide range of medical treatments are out of the reach of it's inhabitants? Nor would it skyrocket because comparatively wealthy nations figure out how to fix alzheimers in it's senior citizens or cancer in seven year old Johnny.

Man! Learn to read!

whoa, slow down man. said i couldnt remember who said it, just glanced over a few things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blastocysts, where embryonic stem cells are extracted from are very different from our bundle of cells. In the case of humans (and foetuses) the cells have been differentiated into specific cell types, whereas in blastocysts the cells are undifferentiated. To say that we are just a bundle of cells in comparison to a blastocyst is much more misleading.

someone got in A in biology =D> , i agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yea, the 'bunch of cells' that makes up a human being are superiorly complex when compared to a blastocyst. once could argue that the human body is the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe - tissue, organs, bodily systems and all goverened by a single genetic code, present in every cell of your body (with a nucleus), i find biochemistry/ human biology fascinating. a blastocyst but... absolutely no defined bodily organs or systems, you'd need a pretty expensive microscope to see a blastocyst ('roud 150 cells) too, i rekon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its my belief that a blastocyst is just a piece of biological matter, as is a human body, they have no value and are disposable (they say that 98% of the atoms in your body will be replaced in 1 year with the food you eat)

 

 

 

its the mind of the person which has value - makes us who we are. But a blastocyst dosent have a brain and hence no cognitive 'mind.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just another thought.

But a blastocyst dosent have a brain and hence no cognitive 'mind.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just another thought.

So preventing something from devolping is ok because it doesn't have a mind yet? The reason why its ok to get your apendix removed (ethically speaking) is because it isn't devolping into a seperate life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I wrong that I hold life in very high regards? I am very thankful that I wasn't used in stem cell research.

So preventing something from devolping is ok because it doesn't have a mind yet? The reason why its ok to get your apendix removed (ethically speaking) is because it isn't devolping into a seperate life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I wrong that I hold life in very high regards? I am very thankful that I wasn't used in stem cell research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless you were concieved in vitro at a fertility clinic, there has never been any danger. And even then, the options ranged stem cell research to biological waste disposal, where they have about as much a chance as your removed appendix to develop into a separate life.