alexey Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Thank you I did read it and this is exactly what i am saying:1) Embryos are lives An embryo contains the potential to form a human, therefore it should be valued as highly as a human life Well, let's see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Causes About 30% of fertilized eggs are actually lost before the woman knows she is pregnant and may only be noticeable by slightly more important blood loss.First trimester losses are most commonly caused by one time non-repeating genetic problems. This can be the result of an abnormal sperm, and abnormal ovum or an abnormal combination of the egg and sperm. If embryos are lives, in legal terms, then a miscarriage can also be murder, involuntary manslaughter, etc. If embryos are lives, then women who had a miscarriage after drinking but before they knew they were pregnant could be tried for Involuntary Manslaughter. Have you considered all the implications? The slippery slope goes both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Well, let's see...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Causes If embryos are lives, in legal terms, then a miscarriage can also be murder, involuntary manslaughter, etc. If embryos are lives, then women who had a miscarriage after drinking but before they knew they were pregnant could be tried for Involuntary Manslaughter. Have you considered all the implications? The slippery slope goes both ways. I understand your point. I think that the difference between doing something on purpose and doing something unintentionally is pretty big. agreed? I think common sense would say that you dont charge a woman for the above example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Skins Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Go Stem Cell.. Go England.. Cell transplants 'restore sight' Cell transplants have successfully restored vision to mice which had lost their sight, leading to hopes people could benefit in the same way. UK scientists treated animals which had eye damage similar to that seen in many human eye diseases. They were able to help them see again by transplanting immature retinal stem cells into their eyes. UK experts welcomed the study, published in the magazine Nature, saying it was "stunning" research. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6120664.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 The majority of people in the US are christians. Let's just make that the official religion if the majority believe it.You are managing to say a lot of words without really making any points. You are ignoring actual real-life situations because it is easier to just say "in the name of science". It's a cop-out excuse for not being able to defend yourself. I told you my position,I didnt think I was getting graded on real life examples:rolleyes: The fact of the matter is, I have a belief for when life starts, you do too. Even the government is confused with a place to point for where life starts. For instance (here's a real life example!!!!) 1. Woman can have an abortion at 3 months pregnant (legal) 2. Woman gets in a car accident and is 3 months pregnant child is killed as a result, the person who caused the accident can then be charged with IVM whats the difference in the child between these two situations? Whether or not the mother was choosing to "have" the child? Does that make sense? where's the definition on when life begins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Go Stem Cell.. Go England.. Cell transplants 'restore sight' Cell transplants have successfully restored vision to mice which had lost their sight, leading to hopes people could benefit in the same way. UK scientists treated animals which had eye damage similar to that seen in many human eye diseases. They were able to help them see again by transplanting immature retinal stem cells into their eyes. UK experts welcomed the study, published in the magazine Nature, saying it was "stunning" research. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6120664.stm yeah, a bunch of mice can see now!!!! wasnt it proven that nutra-sweet (sacrine or whatever) caused brain damage in mice? this is a question, not me saying that it is factual, just a question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Inigo, do you support the death penalty? Curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Is it ethical to enforce faith on others? I am not forcing my faith on you, but the government is forcing "your" lack of ethics (IMO) on me and taking it out of my wallet! BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Inigo, do you support the death penalty? Curious. No, can we save that argument for another day though. BTW, for a good read on the topic, J Grisham has a new book that I found interesting... not trying to sell anything, just found it interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 without science, humans would be dead at the age of 5.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 without science, humans would be dead at the age of 5.. LOL:laugh: means to an end is all I am saying. I think I have received all the lashing I can take in one day, next thing you guys and gals will tell me is the Redskins have to travel to the Linc this weekend and play a division rival!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 No, can we save that argument for another day though. BTW, for a good read on the topic, J Grisham has a new book that I found interesting... not trying to sell anything, just found it interesting. That's cool. I've just always found it incredibly inconsistant that some are against abortion, against stem cell research, but pro death penalty. Seems to me if you value human life you should value human life. I can respect your position if you respect life in all its phases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I understand your point. I think that the difference between doing something on purpose and doing something unintentionally is pretty big. agreed? I think common sense would say that you dont charge a woman for the above example. Agreed, sure... but our agreement is meaningless. The legal system does not work on common sense. The legal system applies laws. Careless actions of an individual that result in a death of another individual constitute Involuntary Manslaughter. This issue is not a matter of you and me agreeing. Considering an embryo equal to a human being entails a huge number of considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Agreed, sure... but our agreement is meaningless. The legal system does not work on common sense. The legal system applies laws. Careless actions of an individual that result in a death of another individual constitute Involuntary Manslaughter.This issue is not a matter of you and me agreeing. There is a huge number of other things that must be taking into consideration. I appreciate that and I guess then that my hope would be for common sense. Anyone running on that platform in 2 yrs???:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The common sense platform could never win. Both Democrats and Republicans are devoid of it, wouldn't recognize it if it bit them, and disagree on what the heck it is in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 That's cool. I've just always found it incredibly inconsistant that some are against abortion, against stem cell research, but pro death penalty. Seems to me if you value human life you should value human life. I can respect your position if you respect life in all its phases. I completely agree, unfortunately each issue has its own individual issues as well and they all have good arguements for both sides, maybe the toughest things (the above issues) to really think about and have an unwavering opinion on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I appreciate that and I guess then that my hope would be for common sense. Anyone running on that platform in 2 yrs???:laugh: It seems a balance between counteracting forces would be the way to arrive to a situation that remotely resembles common sense... there will always be people willing to drop ethical considerations in the name of science, just like there will always be people willing to drop science altogether It seems we can never arrive to a position that would be acceptable to all... especially when it comes to issues like these, where compromise as such is not acceptable to many involved parties... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaudry Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 An embryo contains the potential to form a human, therefore it should be valued as highly as a human life Sperm also contain potential to form a human, therefore every time you drop a load in your dirty sock you are ending 20,000,000 potential lives. If embryos are lives, in legal terms, then a miscarriage can also be murder, involuntary manslaughter, etc. I have never seen somebody so smugly confident in their opinions and yet be such a fool at the same time. Your point here, as usual, is flatly incorrect. In legal terms, you have no idea what you are talking about. yeah, a bunch of mice can see now!!!! wasnt it proven that nutra-sweet (sacrine or whatever) caused brain damage in mice? this is a question, not me saying that it is factual, just a question... Yes, most artificial sweeteners cause health problems in mice. The comparable amount that affected mice was was something like a human drinking 100 cans of soda every day for 20 years. That isn't even relevant. Nobody else is out there curing blindness in mice through other methods. I think that people like you don't really care until it hits home to you or a close friend or family member. without science, humans would be dead at the age of 5.. Really..... even the most primitive men had a lifespan into their late teens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Yes I am and thats the primary reason for being against it. I think in the name of science in some cases, convenience in others people have taken what should be defined as the beginning of life and and turned it into a gray area so they can live with themselves. And the limitations and what it acceptable will only be expanded further and further. so you don't think that everyone should have the chance to have children? It's not everyones right to procreate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Sperm also contain potential to form a human, therefore every time you drop a load in your dirty sock you are ending 20,000,000 potential lives. If embryos are lives, in legal terms, then a miscarriage can also be murder, involuntary manslaughter, etc. DEATH TO MASTURBATORS!!!!! That is the solution to the problem facing our great nation, if you masturbate, you are killing 20million people. Who do you think you are, Hitler??? Stalin??? Death to the person who would disgrace their body like that and kill 20million innocent spermatozoa Yep, that is the argument you are placing on us Inygo. Kill all the masturbatory bastages who jerk off, they should all be put to death for killing life. Man, I am surprised Missouri is that backwards, it just goes to show you the power of propaganda. This should have been an easy vote, not a 50-50 split, even religious folk can see the benefits to humanity in stem cell research. OK, off to listen to Rush for 1/2 an hour, this should be fun today :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Really..... even the most primitive men had a lifespan into their late teens. umm I think he was exagerating and, science has provided for babies to have more of a shot to live As well as made it easier for embryos to plant into the uteran (sp) wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Proven, ethical...are you serious? What is ethical about using the other stem cells that isn't ethical if the state pays for the research? Are you saying the government should have no role in funding research because it uses stem cells (but other medical research is ok)? Does the source of the funding some how make the research succeed? As a tax payer with MS, I'm all for my tax dollars being used in the most efficient economic fashion to find cures or treatments for diseases like MS, Parkinsons, or any of hundreds of other things. If this lets the same dollars translate into more research, then I'm all for it (cheaper more readily available stem cells that were never going to result in a baby). Simple economics, lower the costs and you can get more done with the same money. You think that's greedy/ unethical, and yet having cells cost more for the sake of your ethical feelings isn't selfish? I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to find a polite way to word how I think about your ethical condemnation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have never seen somebody so smugly confident in their opinions and yet be such a fool at the same time. Your point here, as usual, is flatly incorrect. In legal terms, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was trying to show that there is a number of legal implications to considering embryos human beings. Never did I claim intimate knowledge of such implications. Perhaps you could try offering insight instead of calling names... Yes my understanding of the legal system is not very good, but I thought I had the basics down. I would be very interested in seing where I have gone wrong, so please do share your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I've said this before and I'll say it again. What I don't understand about the right is that they're perfectly ok with sending young people such as myself over to a foreign land to very possibly die to save lives over here but they won't use embryos, even ones that will be thrown away, to save lives. How does that work out? Is an embryo that will see the bottom of a trash can one day more valuable then the nearly 3,000 good Americans that have died in Iraq? Same thing applies with the death penalty. Life is so sacred until it's a scary black guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaudry Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I was trying to show that there is a number of legal implications to considering embryos human beings. Never did I claim intimate knowledge of such implications. ORLY? "If embryos are lives, in legal terms, then a miscarriage can also be murder, involuntary manslaughter, etc." Their are no legal implications... none. It would be decidedly difficult to claim intimate knowledge of implications that do not exist. Yet you claim that "in legal terms" a miscarraige can also be murder. Just because you say something does not make it true. Honestly, to read your posts it's like you are from a different country or a different world or a different universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Honestly, to read your posts it's like you are from a different country or a different world or a different universe. They all make me feel like that. I don't understand how people can come from the same place and have such opposite views on things. Crazy stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.