# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Very worrying

## Kärnfysikern

I didnt think I would ever se this kind of anti progress nonsense in europe. Especialy not from germany of all countries!! What the hell has hapened to that nation that used to lead the way in science and technology. Its disgusting.


http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23252/

http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/m...article-144641

http://www.catholicregister.org/modu...6&page_id=2015

whats next? are we gonna stop building telescopes because cosmology might not go hand in hand with christianity? Will funding be cut short to biology because theory of evolution doesnt agree with the bible? 
I wonder what those morons oposed to stem cell research realy think. Dont they realise how many lifes that could be saved? Or the possibilities of extending our lifespan ect?

----------


## RA

Even if your not a Christian you should not be for killing babies.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Even if your not a Christian you should not be for killing babies.


uhm and what has that got to do with stem cell research  :Don't know:   :Hmmmm:

----------


## RA

You get stem cells from an aborted fetus.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> You get stem cells from an aborted fetus.


or from the umbilical cord blod or from adults and other sources. Banning all stem cell research because one way of getting stem cells might be wrong is stupid. 

If someone is getting a abortion anyway I dont se the fuss about using those cells either.

----------


## RA

> If someone is getting a abortion anyway I dont se the fuss about using those cells either.


 
Killing a baby, then harvesting its stem cells like some kind of vulture. It doesnt even sound human.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Not to mention the embryonic stem cells are taken form the embryo when the embryo is 5 days old. Its not a human its a bunch of cells with human dna. Its no more human than a piece of my skin.

But that isnt relevant since there is other ways to get ahold of the stem cells.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Killing a baby, then harvesting its stem cells like some kind of vulture. It doesnt even sound human.


If the parent is going to get a abortion either way. Does it do anymore harm to put those cells to good use? I dont se the logic behind that. The embryo is gonna die either way.

----------


## RA

> Not to mention the embryonic stem cells are taken form the embryo when the embryo is 5 days old. Its not a human its a bunch of cells with human dna. Its no more human than a piece of my skin.
> 
> *But that isnt relevant since there is other ways to get ahold of the stem cells*.


 
Of course there is. But, where do you think the abortion advocates are going to place thier support and money?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

I dont want to get into a discussion wheter a featus is a human or not. My point is that there are other ways to get ahold of stem cells and banning stem cell research doesnt make any sense because of those other options.

I dont understand how religious people can be opposed to ALL stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research yes. But not all stem cell research. It must be because of ignorance.

----------


## RA

> If the parent is going to get a abortion either way. Does it do anymore harm to put those cells to good use? I dont se the logic behind that. The embryo is gonna die either way.


 
Like I said. Its not human to be so heartless over an innocent human life. No way I would ever support it.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Of course there is. But, where do you think the abortion advocates are going to place thier support and money?



so you propose that all stem cell research should be banned, sacrificing countless lifes in the future because of the cures that wont be developed and limiting our scientific progress because some pro abortion people might push for embryonic stem cell research?

----------


## RA

> I dont want to get into a discussion wheter a featus is a human or not. My point is that there are other ways to get ahold of stem cells and banning stem cell research doesnt make any sense because of those other options.
> 
> I dont understand how religious people can be opposed to ALL stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research yes. But not all stem cell research. It must be because of ignorance.


Ignorance, maybe. But that is generally how it is presented to the public.

You can get more stem cells and of better quality, apparently, from a fetus. I wouldn't mind the research as long as they stayed away from babies.

----------


## RA

> so you propose that all stem cell research should be banned, sacrificing countless lifes in the future because of the cures that wont be developed and limiting our scientific progress because some pro abortion people might push for embryonic stem cell research?


 
No, see above.

----------


## biglouie250

its amazing. if it not for all these frigging road blocks in government christopher reeves would still be alive and probably walking again. i wish bill gates or some uber rich guy would just donate a billion dollars to stem cell research and say f*ck you to all the pretentious pr*cks in government. If GWB's daughters suffered from a spinal cord injury i bet he'd be all for stem cell research. Just like Cheney is not against gay marriage because of his daughter.....funny how people's "beliefs" change when something directly affects them.

----------


## RA

> its amazing. if it not for all these frigging road blocks in government christopher reeves would still be alive and probably walking again. i wish bill gates or some uber rich guy would just donate a billion dollars to stem cell research and say f*ck you to all the pretentious pr*cks in government. If GWB's daughters suffered from a spinal cord injury i bet he'd be all for stem cell research. Just like Cheney is not against gay marriage because of his daughter.....funny how people's "beliefs" change when something directly affects them.


 
I don't believe that would change his mind.

----------


## Teabagger

Morally and ethically it is no different than the blackmarket for human organs. Innocents are kidnapped, the organs harvested, and sold. Of course the donor is dead...but you could argue this donor's life was not in the end sustainable due to poverty, or was of such a low quality of life that the donor is better off dead, and his death prolonged the life of a "productive" important human. hmmm, kind of indicates little respect for life, huh? Hmm, kinda like the argument for human "embryo" research...the fetus could not sustain life outside the womb...it may, in rare instances, have some congenitive abnormalities that would not allow it to live a "happy, fruitful" life...hmmm...some of the same arguments and rationale used by the illustrious Dr. Joseph Mengele...the unworthy have to be sacrificed for the good of people, and advancement of knowledge...

Medical science has in fact determined "life" begins pretty much at conception, so the question you have to ask yourself then is, when does life become valuable? And what does "valuable" mean?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Ignorance, maybe. But that is generally how it is presented to the public.


To bad the general public is to stupid to realise they are beeing fooled...




> You can get more stem cells and of better quality, apparently, from a fetus. I wouldn't mind the research as long as they stayed away from babies.


Seems like its not certain the embryonic stem cells are better. Maby they are more convinient or something but some experters claim adult stem cells are more promising.

----------


## RA

Plus, its is an hypothesis that stem cells hold the key to all these cures. They do not know for sure. To say Christopher Reeves would still be alive and walking if we would have dumped a bunch of money into stem cell research is ridiculous.

----------


## The OutLord

It`s meaningless Johan!!

It`s similar debate about abortion!!.

It`s Religon every thing about it!!!.

It is stupid.

Science proof of the super knowledge Is ok from Monday to Saturday.
But when you come to Sunday ther is God and that is the time Science is stupid!!.
Just put mony in the collecter over you heads in churth and god forgive you , then we can figth on Monday.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Morally and ethically it is no different than the blackmarket for human organs. Innocents are kidnapped, the organs harvested, and sold. Of course the donor is dead...but you could argue this donor's life was not in the end sustainable due to poverty, or was of such a low quality of life that the donor is better off dead, and his death prolonged the life of a "productive" important human. hmmm, kind of indicates little respect for life, huh? Hmm, kinda like the argument for human "embryo" research...the fetus could not sustain life outside the womb...it may, in rare instances, have some congenitive abnormalities that would not allow it to live a "happy, fruitful" life...hmmm...some of the same arguments and rationale used by the illustrious Dr. Joseph Mengele...the unworthy have to be sacrificed for the good of people, and advancement of knowledge...
> 
> Medical science has in fact determined "life" begins pretty much at conception, so the question you have to ask yourself then is, when does life become valuable? And what does "valuable" mean?



did you read what I wrote that its possible to get the stem cells from adults :Hmmmm:  

imo a bunch of cells doesnt make a human. But like I wrote earlier that isnt the topic since stem cells can be taken from other sources.

----------


## biglouie250

roidattack - i understand yours and others beliefs that abortion is wrong etc. However i dont understand why "pro-lifers" want to push their agenda on everyone. I mean if someone wants to have an abortion or have their fetus harvested for stem cells what business is it of yours? Does it affect you in any way? If its a christian thing then why care as you are going to heaven and the abortionist will go to hell? I just dont get why you want to ruin it for everyone. If you dont want your tax dollars to go to funding well there is plenty of things i dont want my tax dollars to go to but i dont protest them.....

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Plus, its is an hypothesis that stem cells hold the key to all these cures. They do not know for sure. To say Christopher Reeves would still be alive and walking if we would have dumped a bunch of money into stem cell research is ridiculous.


well will we ever find out if we dont give it a shot? Il support every possibility that can lead to longer and healtier lifes and possible cures to diseases. 

No one knows what a new technology might lead to until that technology is developed.

----------


## biglouie250

> Medical science has in fact determined "life" begins pretty much at conception, so the question you have to ask yourself then is, when does life become valuable? And what does "valuable" mean?


the scientific definition of life refutes this as a the conceived cells can not carry out all life processes to be deemed alive.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> It`s meaningless Johan!!
> 
> It`s similar debate about abortion!!.
> 
> It`s Religon every thing about it!!!.
> 
> It is stupid.


Im glad sweden is secular so we dont have to have that kind of bullshit here. To bad that the EU might be influenced by anti scientific nonsens. If that happens Il go around screaming for a withdrawal from the EU even though I am a very strong EU supporter.

----------


## biglouie250

one thing i find amazing is its historical context. Its like another "dark ages" of sorts where religious zealots stifle thinking and scientific progress. For nearly 500 years in europe thinking and progress was halted becuase of religious beliefs. where would we be now if scientists, philosphers, doctors and other intellects were allowed to freely practice. did you guys know that the ancient greeks invented the steam engine? one of many advanced ideas lost becuase of ignorance.

----------


## RA

> roidattack - i understand yours and others beliefs that abortion is wrong etc. However i dont understand why "pro-lifers" want to push their agenda on everyone. I mean if someone wants to have an abortion or have their fetus harvested for stem cells what business is it of yours? Does it affect you in any way? If its a christian thing then why care as you are going to heaven and the abortionist will go to hell? I just dont get why you want to ruin it for everyone. If you dont want your tax dollars to go to funding well there is plenty of things i dont want my tax dollars to go to but i dont protest them.....


 
If your neighbor is stabbing their child and burying them in the backyard, what business is that of yours?


To me. No difference.

----------


## RA

To me its not religious. Its common sense.

----------


## FranKieC

> well will we ever find out if we dont give it a shot? Il support every possibility that can lead to longer and healtier lifes and possible cures to diseases. 
> 
> No one knows what a new technology might lead to until that technology is developed.



Totally agree

----------


## Teabagger

> the scientific definition of life refutes this as a the conceived cells can not carry out all life processes to be deemed alive.


Not so biglouie...the medical definition of life, or death, is electrical brain activity...that occures days after conception. The functioning of other organs are not a prerequiste to the definition of life. 

Johan I am not opposed at all to "adult" stem cell research, and actually support it...

----------


## RA

> well will we ever find out if we dont give it a shot? Il support every possibility that can lead to longer and healtier lifes and possible cures to diseases. 
> 
> No one knows what a new technology might lead to until that technology is developed.


 
I understand that. But to claim that we would have all these magical cures is not right. We dont know yet.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Not so biglouie...the medical definition of life, or death, is electrical brain activity...that occures days after conception. The functioning of other organs are not a prerequiste to the definition of life.


How can there be brain activity before there is a brain?? After 5 days the embryo is still just a bunch of cells without organs.




> Johan I am not opposed at all to "adult" stem cell research, and actually support it...


Glad to hear that  :Thumps Up:  to bad that most people cant separate and paint all stem cell research as shit. The church should alteast point out that they are against one specific kind of stem cell research and not all kinds. Or maby they are opposed to all kinds of stem cell research??

----------


## RA

> the scientific definition of life refutes this as a the conceived cells can not carry out all life processes to be deemed alive.


So because it cant take a dump yet its not alive? You could say a baby doesnt have the means to take care of itself when first born therefore its not alive.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I understand that. But to claim that we would have all these magical cures is not right. We dont know yet.


Well the worst thing anyone can do is just sit back and say that maby nothing good will come out of it and NOT react when bans are put into place. I HATE nothing more than seeing progress stunted because of uneducated voters manipulated by scare mongers.

----------


## RA

> Well the worst thing anyone can do is just sit back and say that maby nothing good will come out of it and NOT react when bans are put into place. I HATE nothing more than seeing progress stunted because of uneducated voters manipulated by scare mongers.


 
I dont think anyone that would be against adult stem cell research.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

I guess you are equaly oposed to creating a embryo by taking one of your cells and putting into a egg and harvest that for stem cells? That just basicly a clone of yourself. But could still possibly grow up to a child.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Does anyone know if the us funding ban is specificly for embryonic stem cells or for all kinds of stem cell research?

----------


## RA

> I guess you are equaly oposed to creating a embryo by taking one of your cells and putting into a egg and harvest that for stem cells? That just basicly a clone of yourself. But could still possibly grow up to a child.


I wouldnt mind if you could figure out how to just grow the stem cells. :Wink/Grin:  
Not a big chance of that though.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I wouldnt mind if you could figure out how to just grow the stem cells. 
> Not a big chance of that though.


well who knows  :Smilie:  Maby in time  :7up:

----------


## Phreak101

> Does anyone know if the us funding ban is specificly for embryonic stem cells or for all kinds of stem cell research?


It is simply for embryonic. Bush had to do it because his agenda is also pro-life, and it would not make much sense to be pro-life yet support embryonic stem cell research.

I personally think it's dumb, but a point for the Bush agenda would be that the private sector will be able to be more competitive in method and use of stem cell, rather than the government bloating the industry with how they see the funds should be distributed.

----------


## RA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060719-3.html

----------


## RA

"However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body."

From the presidents speech in 2001. That is why I thought they were superior to adult stem cells.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> "However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body."
> 
> From the presidents speech in 2001. That is why I thought they were superior to adult stem cells.


it might very well be true. I know hardly nothing about it. I find biology horribly boring  :AaGreen22:  all I want is for those damn biologist and biomed's to find a way to make me live 500 years. How they do it isnt my concern :7up:

----------


## Phreak101

> Not so biglouie...the medical definition of life, or death, is electrical brain activity...that occures days after conception. The functioning of other organs are not a prerequiste to the definition of life.


This is incorrect. The medical definition of life with reagrds to someone who is ALREADY LIVING is brain activity, the medical definiton of life for pre-natal is being able to be self-sufficient in terms of basic life activity without assistance, ie breathing, eating, etc.

----------


## RA

> This is incorrect. The medical definition of life with reagrds to someone who is ALREADY LIVING is brain activity, the medical definiton of life for pre-natal is being able to be self-sufficient in terms of basic life activity without assistance, ie breathing, eating, etc.


 


Unfortunately that probably is the definition.

----------


## The OutLord

> Im glad sweden is secular so we dont have to have that kind of bullshit here. To bad that the EU might be influenced by anti scientific nonsens. If that happens Il go around screaming for a withdrawal from the EU even though I am a very strong EU supporter.



1000% AGREE with you Johan.

I realy like you and Respekt you ALOT.

You are a person in use of the brain and are in constant thinking.

That is a behaviour in more and more extermination today.

I hate when People stopp think and lean things at others!!!.

To say no to this research & science is just a temporary thing.
A nobody understand that this knowledge and power to controll life and death of a adult/children is unavoidable.

It was so obvious that BUCH say "NO" to this!!
He dont need more problem on his political arena then he already got.

This was just a diplomat behaviour for him.

In future I am very sure that a combination of stam-Cell and lizard DNA with one Injektion and the human will have the loset leg outgrowth back agen.
And that say everything in what powers in the research & science we are taking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !.


And .. Just listen Johan how It sounds to say no of this science!! :Hmmmm:  
This is a technique that is total unavoidable.

This is the gate(Stam-Cell) is a DNA manipulate technique that give the human to laugh at Pandora`s Box!!
We can do and controll everything and that is IF we whant the Key to our own divine-fiction to the true reality , IF we whant!!!!!.

This is unavoidable.
It`s albout somthing must happend... then the It will be green light.

----------


## Superhuman

> so you propose that all stem cell research should be banned, sacrificing countless lifes in the future because of the cures that wont be developed and limiting our scientific progress because some pro abortion people might push for embryonic stem cell research?


if you believe in evolution and "surival of the fittest" then who the **** are we to save these people's lives? They are obviously weaker and are meant to die. We are interfering with nature by using this science. Pure hypocracy

----------


## The OutLord

> if you believe in evolution and "surival of the fittest" then who the **** are we to save these people's lives? They are obviously weaker and are meant to die. We are interfering with nature by using this science. Pure hypocracy


Even for the survive IN WAR?
What do you have for proposition ??? 

wheelchair for life when He save you arse when you are at home on a ordinary day at work!!!!

That is good for you!!!

That is good with divine.

ther is much of views of things!!

**************************
BUT
one thing I agree with.. !!
god:s way is inscrutable 
**************************

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> if you believe in evolution and "surival of the fittest" then who the **** are we to save these people's lives? They are obviously weaker and are meant to die. We are interfering with nature by using this science. Pure hypocracy


hypocracy? So every biologist in the world, every doc and every other sane person that belive in evolution should let people die because they are weak?

I cant even begin to comprehend the logic behind your post. Just because evolution is a fact doesnt mean we should not help our fellow man. We are advanced enough to evolve on our own terms.

----------


## biglouie250

> if you believe in evolution and "surival of the fittest" then who the **** are we to save these people's lives? They are obviously weaker and are meant to die. We are interfering with nature by using this science. Pure hypocracy


cmon!! a fall from 10 feet on your head is going to paralyze if not kill anyone, its not a matter of survival of the fittest.

the real hyposcrisy is that according to the bible god gave man free will to have the ability to do such things but we shouldnt do them.........

----------


## MinkyGirl

Embryonic stem cells can be forced to divide almost indefinately and can become any kind of tissue in the body. Adult stem cells are not so easily manipulated and less active. 

I don't want to see embryos being farmed for research. BUT If abortion is legal, then using those embryos is the ultimate in recycling. I mean, you don't see swarms of people trying to get organ donation banned and its harvesting useful parts from the dead. 

Of course, I didn't see the problem with Soylent Green being made out of people either-as long as people were given the choice of becoming or partaking of it. 

I wouldn't sweat the world missing out on stem cell progress though. China has been making impressive strides in the field.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> 1000% AGREE with you Johan.
> 
> I realy like you and Respekt you ALOT.
> 
> You are a person in use of the brain and are in constant thinking.
> 
> That is a behaviour in more and more extermination today.
> 
> I hate when People stopp think and lean things at others!!!.
> ...


thanks  :Smilie: 

I agree with you. Someday we will be able to life as long as we want to and regrow lost limbs ect. Standing against research like this is just pushing that further into the future and I realy want to be alive when that is possible.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Embryonic stem cells can be forced to divide almost indefinately and can become any kind of tissue in the body. Adult stem cells are not so easily manipulated and less active. 
> 
> I don't want to see embryos being farmed for research. BUT If abortion is legal, then using those embryos is the ultimate in recycling. I mean, you don't see swarms of people trying to get organ donation banned and its harvesting useful parts from the dead. 
> 
> Of course, I didn't see the problem with Soylent Green being made out of people either-as long as people were given the choice of becoming or partaking of it. 
> 
> I wouldn't sweat the world missing out on stem cell progress though. China has been making impressive strides in the field.


well usa was(is?) the single biggest contributor to stem cell research. It can probably slow down development with a few years. If the EU also cancel its funds to stem cell research it will be halted ALOT. China and india doesnt have a chanse to match the funding USA and EU can dish out.

I agree with the organ donor thing fully. If a embryo is dead I dont se anything unethical with using the cells. Its just the same as using the heart or kidney of a dead person. That way the death acctualy contributes to something good instead of just beeing a useless death.,

----------


## Phreak101

> if you believe in evolution and "surival of the fittest" then who the **** are we to save these people's lives? They are obviously weaker and are meant to die. We are interfering with nature by using this science. Pure hypocracy


Morality seperates us from the animals. Having morals allows humanity to bypass natural laws of evolution by being able to examine a situation and make a decision based on that situation. 

Looping "survival of the fittest" because some people are worse off than others is not hypocrisy at all, if anything, it is using what makes us human to ensure the survival of our species.

 :Hmmmm:  Poor logic here, I'm inclined to agree.

----------


## Superhuman

no... i'm not saying we shouldn't save people at all! I'm providing a different view. I brought this up months ago:
http://67.18.108.244/showthread.php?t=250211

I think nature/evolution is getting F*cked up because we are not letting other humans die when they are supposed to, while at the same time humans are getting killed in wars when they shouldn't. Does that make sense? We cure disabilities and conditions for people who go on to breed and have little inferior babies. We have strong, intelligent, and healthy people going to war and dying having no children. I'm tired right now and something really sad happened today  :Frown:  so it's hard to put my thoughts into words well.

----------


## Superhuman

What makes us responsible for the weaker humans who have nothing to offer the species? I'm not talking about weak as in scrawny - I mean people who are unintelligent, morbidly obese, and lazy (pretty much everyone who shops at wal-mart  :LOL: ) Why should any money or time be spent helping these people when they do nothing for Mankind? 

I'm not saying stem cell research is bad at all - in fact I'm all for it as long as there is not an increasing number of abortions as a result.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> no... i'm not saying we shouldn't save people at all! I'm providing a different view. I brought this up months ago:
> http://67.18.108.244/showthread.php?t=250211
> 
> I think nature/evolution is getting F*cked up because we are not letting other humans die when they are supposed to, while at the same time humans are getting killed in wars when they shouldn't. Does that make sense? We cure disabilities and conditions for people who go on to breed and have little inferior babies. We have strong, intelligent, and healthy people going to war and dying having no children. I'm tired right now and something really sad happened today  so it's hard to put my thoughts into words well.


But evolution is such a long term process that what we do wont be noticable in the big picture anyway. Especialy not considering that we within a few centuries will have mastered both genetic engineering and nanotech. With those 2 technologies we will master our own evolution. Creating plenty of superhumans  :Wink: 




> What makes us responsible for the weaker humans who have nothing to offer the species? I'm not talking about weak as in scrawny - I mean people who are unintelligent, morbidly obese, and lazy (pretty much everyone who shops at wal-mart ) Why should any money or time be spent helping these people when they do nothing for Mankind?


lol

The only responsibility we have imo is that they are fellow human beeing and I think that is reason enough. Its kind of hard to say who does and doesnt do anything for mankind either. If those that are obese, sic ect where just left to die I wouldnt live. Im not sure Il make any contribution to mankind but I sure hope I will. :7up:  




> I'm not saying stem cell research is bad at all - in fact I'm all for it as long as there is not an increasing number of abortions as a result.


I dont think the two are related at all. When someone makes a descision to abort I dont think stem cell research is on there mind...

----------


## MinkyGirl

> well usa was(is?) the single biggest contributor to stem cell research. It can probably slow down development with a few years. If the EU also cancel its funds to stem cell research it will be halted ALOT. China and india doesnt have a chanse to match the funding USA and EU can dish out.
> 
> I agree with the organ donor thing fully. If a embryo is dead I dont se anything unethical with using the cells. Its just the same as using the heart or kidney of a dead person. That way the death acctualy contributes to something good instead of just beeing a useless death.,


The cost of advancing medical science in the west is higher and has more friction because western society values the individual more than the whole. Development will slow a bit, but probably not significantly. I imagine the cost of such research is cheaper in these countries. Wages are lower, regulations are more lax, etc. So the total dollars contributed to research doesn't need to be equivalent. China has already established banks to collect aborted embryos. 

Besides, I have a conspiracy theory on the whole stem cell thing. I'm convinced the pharmaceutical companies are behind pushing this anti-stem cell research agenda. Stem cells hold the promise of curing many diseases. Start curing diseases, and the need for prescription drugs or mechanical devices declines drastically. Imagine a future where replacement organs can be grown from a person's adult stem cells and anti-rejections meds are a thing of the past. Stem cell research could spell the end for a number of other morally questionable activities, like black market organs and organ theft. Its not a moral conflict that stands in the way of stem cell research, its the lack of sustainable profitability. There's no money is curing disease, only treating it.

----------


## Phreak101

> The cost of advancing medical science in the west is higher and has more friction because western society values the individual more than the whole. Development will slow a bit, but probably not significantly. I imagine the cost of such research is cheaper in these countries. Wages are lower, regulations are more lax, etc. So the total dollars contributed to research doesn't need to be equivalent. China has already established banks to collect aborted embryos. 
> 
> Besides, I have a conspiracy theory on the whole stem cell thing. I'm convinced the pharmaceutical companies are behind pushing this anti-stem cell research agenda. Stem cells hold the promise of curing many diseases. Start curing diseases, and the need for prescription drugs or mechanical devices declines drastically. Imagine a future where replacement organs can be grown from a person's adult stem cells and anti-rejections meds are a thing of the past. Stem cell research could spell the end for a number of other morally questionable activities, like black market organs and organ theft. Its not a moral conflict that stands in the way of stem cell research, its the lack of sustainable profitability. There's no money is curing disease, only treating it.


Anti-depressants, tranquilizers, stimulants, etc. are still all huge profit takers for drug companies. Stem cells cannot cure depression (so we say), there is still a big profit potential over and beyond sustainability from degenerative diseases.

----------


## The OutLord

The Only thing I am agenst in Stem-Cell.

That is when IF The Human start to Use this eternal power that only our imagination have the limitation to create the Super warrior.

Let us say a Human ore a organism that Is far greater then the Computer so the future Combat aircraft have the ability to make sweep in a turn up to ( Let us say )80 G-Force and make the super intelligent airplain fare dangerous then One Carrier with one fleet of model Combat plain from the year 2006 !!!!
Or Things like that..!!
This weapon Can get in us to our selfs and that is not good!!.

But I am the one that vote YES to the same principle I just takt about if the Organism is in use to make a very long journey in space to finde Life ore protect us from Space!!.
Super machins that have the capacity that No one can dream about Even the wildes fantasy can guess even with our modern 2006 human knowledge possess today.

But that is a Problem the Human we are today not in need to worry about to day or in 800 years in future.


We have already the technique to move a robot arm with a brain with the combination that the computer interpret the brain Order to day on a human. that make the Life for a human with a handicapped to a beter life.

Sooo!! a organism , connect to one computer is in a realistic near future!!.


I am In realy serious intend to say.
Stem-Cell is somthing that can compete with god!!!.

----------


## MinkyGirl

> Anti-depressants, tranquilizers, stimulants, etc. are still all huge profit takers for drug companies. Stem cells cannot cure depression (so we say), there is still a big profit potential over and beyond sustainability from degenerative diseases.


Good point, I'm sure there is plenty of money to be made in those areas still. But which drugs do you think command a higher premium--drugs that stave off terminal illness or drugs that treat common maladies? Drug companies are going to have to rely on human vanity and ambition versus desperation to make profit margins if serious diseases are obliterated.

----------


## Phreak101

> Good point, I'm sure there is plenty of money to be made in those areas still. But which drugs do you think command a higher premium--drugs that stave off terminal illness or drugs that treat common maladies? Drug companies are going to have to rely on human vanity and ambition versus desperation to make profit margins if serious diseases are obliterated.


I would imagine since a lot of the drugs being sold en masse today are being prescribed for conditions that are mental and not tangible would mean that the profit potential for them is only limited to the population of people on this planet.

Only so many people have AIDS, but with enough mental illnesses that are stemmed from psychological factors (depression, bulemia, psychosis, hell penis enlargement), these drug companies can rake huge profits. Just ask anyone with ADD...

----------


## The OutLord

> thanks 
> 
> I agree with you. Someday we will be able to life as long as we want to and regrow lost limbs ect. Standing against research like this is just pushing that further into the future and I realy want to be alive when that is possible.


I realy whant to Be alive to when that happend.

----------


## RA

Johan would you kill 100 innocent people so we could have a cure for cancer?

----------


## biglouie250

> Johan would you kill 100 innocent people so we could have a cure for cancer?


i know this is directed at johan but i cant resist.....
all cancer? if so ill take the machiavelli approach and say that the ends justify the means and killing 100 people is better than letting millions suffer and die in the future

----------


## The OutLord

> Johan would you kill 100 innocent people so we could have a cure for cancer?


In this "Term" You mention in Peolpe Are Not people Yet!.

But If You Turne The question and Mention the knowledge in to what it is.



> And that Term is
> -: Johan would you kill 100 innocent bunch of Cells that have not the knowledge about ther own existence and this Stem-cell have NO knowing of their own surroundings so we could have a cure for cancer?
> That Is a more correct question.


That Is the first.

For the Second..

This is not abortion.

Stem-Cell can be everything.
That means that it can be enything.
That means this is not a murder on the Organism.
It will live further and (With that the human will not get tow souls!!)


I can describe this Term in an nother way like this.

You take water and starch and then you have concrete!.
Compare this with a egg and sperm.
the DNA say this will be a human.
Concrete in this case is the Embrio that say this wil be a hous.
This Concrete Embrio say that (DNA is the shape-found to a hous)
Is this murder on this Hous if you regret this shape-found to the hous and ju put the Concrete in to a shape-found to the garage because you need the garage to the car because you can repair the cars rust!! 
You regret the hous because you need to figth the disease (Rust)


It`s Very similar comparison.

----------


## Superhuman

> In this "Term" You mention in Peolpe Are Not people Yet!.
> 
> But If You Turne The question and Mention the knowledge in to what it is.
> 
> 
> That Is the first.
> 
> For the Second..
> 
> ...


what you say is definitely valid, but it is SO HARD to understand what you are saying!

----------


## kdawg21

Stem cells can come from sources other than aborted Feti..... (fetusseses, errr whatever; aborted babies) I don't think that religion is the only issue here, a stem cell is essentially a blank cell that is capable of recieving a DNA imprint (thats the over simplified version) thus the ramifications of stem cells go well beyond simply repairing a damaged spinal column, for examlple the ability to clone. Cloning presents its own set of complications, definition of self, definition of life and murder, what rights would a clone have? You can see that it will drastically change the legal system, not to mention usher in another problem regarding cloning people for specific tasks etc..... 

For every period of liberalism there is a conservative backlash, it happens all the time in politics thats just the way it goes.

----------


## Tock

> Medical science has in fact determined "life" begins pretty much at conception, so the question you have to ask yourself then is, when does life become valuable? And what does "valuable" mean?


Boy golly, I dunno what medical research you're citing here, but there isn't ANY science that has established that "souls" enter an embryo anytime during or after conception. None. 
You'd think that over the past jillion thousand years, with all the people motivated to find even one, that someone somewhere would have figured out a way to prove that humans and/or animals have 'em. But no one has. Ever.

At conception, a sperm cell mates with an egg, and then all sorts of things internal to the cell take place, none of which are shrouded in mystery. Thanks to 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation 
_you can check out how things actually work:
All mammals rely on internal fertilisation through copulation. To deliver the sperm to the female, the male inserts his sexual organ, the penis, into the opening of the vagina, the passage into the female's other sexual organs. (This process is a part of copulation.) Once the male ejaculates, a large number of sperm cells swim toward the ovum.

The capacitated spermatozoon and the oocyte meet and interact in the ampulla of the fallopian tube. In mammals, binding of the spermatozoon to the zona pellucida, an extracellular layer surrounding the oocyte, initiates the acrosome reaction. This process releases the enzyme hyaluronidase, which digests the matrix of hyaluronic acid in the vestments surrounding the oocyte. Fusion between the sperm and oocyte plasma membranes follows, allowing the entry of the sperm nucleus, mitochondria, centriole and flagellum into the oocyte. Once the ovum fuses with a single sperm cell, its cell membrane changes, preventing fusion with other sperm.

This process ultimately leads to the formation of a diploid cell called a zygote. When the embryo reaches the uterus and implants in the endometrium, it begins to divide and form an embryo. At this point the female is said to be pregnant. If the embryo emplants in the fallopian tubes, rather than in the uterus, an ectopic pregnancy results, which can be fatal to the mother.

In some animals (e.g. rabbit) the act of coitus induces ovulation by stimulating release of the pituitary hormone gonadotropin. This greatly increases the probability that coitus will result in pregnancy.

If fertilisation takes place, the sperm usually meet the ovum in the fallopian tube, requiring the sperm cells to swim from the upper vagina through the cervix and across the length of the uterus before reaching the fallopian tubea considerable distance compared to the size of the sperm cell._


So, all you've really got at conception is a fertillized egg. Is the end result "valuable?" Some people say so. But if you look at all the neglected, abused, hungry, homeless, helpless children around the world, I don't think you could say so.

-Tock

----------


## Tock

> You get stem cells from an aborted fetus.


Heterosexuals go to fertility clinics for help with reproduction problems, and they frequently pay to have several eggs fertilized with sperm, and then they pay to have them frozen for future use. So right now, there are jiliions upon jillions of frozen embryos all across the country waiting to be thawed and "hatched." Only problem is, though, that the parents usually have many more eggs fertilized with sperm than they expect they'll want to use. So, unless someone comes along and volunteers to carry the embryo to full term, all those extra embryos are going to be disposed of, one way or another.

The parents could drive up to the clinic and pick up the frozen eggs, take 'em home, and bury 'em, or put 'em in the trash. Or, scientists could use the embryos to find cure for diseases. 

Right now, foreign nations are proceeding full speed in an effort to find disease cures with stem cells from these embryos. The United States, thanks to fundamentalist Christians, is not. So, unless things change, the USA is going to fall behind in medical science. We'll be behind the Koreans, Chinese, Europeans, etc. And then we'll have something else we can import from overseas -- medicine.


It's up to Americans if they want to put up with this nonsense. 

-Tock

----------


## The OutLord

> what you say is definitely valid, but it is SO HARD to understand what you are saying!


Yea.. I know.

sigh!!
I am A wretched/worthless on Englich.
I know.

I use this program to make me in understanding when i dont finde the words in my head. 
http://lexin.nada.kth.se/sve-eng.shtml
in combination of what I have learn since I Enterd this site. 

I am in constant learning of englich.
(I was cuting the Englich class in shool and I regret that now.)

My problem in the Englich language is that I dont know all the time how and when I Must end every word and meaning correct In all of the name in vowel , substantive , adjective and plural.

In shool we learning Englich and on TV we learning American!!.

my Englich knowledge is bottom.
but I am happy, you/everybody understand me in some how!!

I am geting better and better and I am making strong progress.

:-D

----------


## Badgermanreincarnate

Bush doesn't give a shit about children.........texas produces 20% of the CO2
emissions in the US. If you care about children you don't let war destroy children's liVes. If you care about children you have a sound energy policy which looks to the future. And he certainly doesn't care about teenagers since he sends them to die in an illegal war.
If you let me stick around long enough. I can even find a bible verse relating to abortion which has surprising ramifications for the "life at conception ''
group. But if you all are still ban happy.......so be it.

----------


## Badgermanreincarnate

What really needs to be addressed in the extraodinary money spent in the last 30 days of a persons life. Some tough decisions need to be made.
We treat our animals with more dignity than our fellow man

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Johan would you kill 100 innocent people so we could have a cure for cancer?


hmmm.

I dont know.
If I dont do it I will live with all the cancer victims on my conscience, if I do it I will live with those 100 lifes on my conscience.



If the question however was would I kill 100 blastocytes(very early stage embryo),left over from for example a firtility clinic like tock mention, to find a cure for cancer I would say yes without a doubt.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Yea.. I know.
> 
> sigh!!
> I am A wretched/worthless on Englich.
> I know.
> 
> I use this program to make me in understanding when i dont finde the words in my head. 
> http://lexin.nada.kth.se/sve-eng.shtml
> in combination of what I have learn since I Enterd this site. 
> ...


Just keep on writing  :Thumps Up:  I understand pretty much everything you write and you are improving.

----------


## Superhuman

> Yea.. I know.
> 
> sigh!!
> I am A wretched/worthless on Englich.
> I know.
> 
> I use this program to make me in understanding when i dont finde the words in my head. 
> http://lexin.nada.kth.se/sve-eng.shtml
> in combination of what I have learn since I Enterd this site. 
> ...


well you are doing very well, so don't worry. You speak better English than plenty of the Americans on this board!  :LOL:  If you or anybody else on here speak any other languages this can be a very helpful tool as well (I didn't see your language on there, though) http://translation2.paralink.com/

----------


## Mizfit

> Killing a baby, then harvesting its stem cells like some kind of vulture. It doesnt even sound human.



It's no one's choice, except for the person having the procedure.

and Johan is right - this type of research is beneficial in so many ways.

----------


## Mizfit

> Johan would you kill 100 innocent people so we could have a cure for cancer?



aren't all the people dying of cancer innocent as well? And the numbers of those dying from cancer today, and int he future far exceed this 100 innocent people you speak of.

----------


## Teabagger

In reply to your post...I never once mentioned "soul", as a condition of life, you did. You try to bring religion into this, I don't. There is right and wrong in the universe, regardless of which religion, if any, you subscribe to.

----------


## Teabagger

> It's no one's choice, except for the person having the procedure.
> 
> and Johan is right - this type of research is beneficial in so many ways.


That's pure hogwash. Choice...BS. Neither you or any other woman, has the right to choose to end a life. Abortion is the largest stain on humanity in the history of the world. Karma is real.

----------


## SVTMuscle*

I'm 100% for Stem Cell/Abortion although I am a christian. A 18 year old athelete going to college is more important than an unborn bundle of cells in my eyes.

----------


## Mizfit

> That's pure hogwash. Choice...BS. Neither you or any other woman, has the right to choose to end a life. Abortion is the largest stain on humanity in the history of the world. Karma is real.


Wow..

I won't get into the debate about this, but i will say this - you or anyone else has no right to tell me what my rights as a woman are.

----------


## SVTMuscle*

> Wow..
> 
> I won't get into the debate about this, but i will say this - you or anyone else has no right to tell me what my rights as a woman are.


its your right..... to cook me dinner! 









 :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Mizfit

> its your right..... to cook me dinner!


porkchops :Smilie:

----------


## biglouie250

> That's pure hogwash. Choice...BS. Neither you or any other woman, has the right to choose to end a life. Abortion is the largest stain on humanity in the history of the world. Karma is real.


see the middle east. the US, Israel, Iran, hezbollah, taliban, iraqi insurgents, and lebanon among other disagree with you as they ALL think they have the right to end life......

and as mizfit said no man has any right to tell a woman what their rights are. their body, there choice.......it affects them, not you. and miz i like my pork chops grilled, drizzled with olive oil and some parsley thanks.

----------


## Teabagger

> Wow..
> 
> I won't get into the debate about this, but i will say this - you or anyone else has no right to tell me what my rights as a woman are.


Oh but we do. Every society puts limits on an individuals ability to act. They are called laws. At this time sadly abortion is legal...but just because something is legal..does not make it right. Just as some things that are illegal, are not wrong.

----------


## Mizfit

> see the middle east. the US, Israel, Iran, hezbollah, taliban, iraqi insurgents, and lebanon among other disagree with you as they ALL think they have the right to end life......
> 
> and as mizfit said no man has any right to tell a woman what their rights are. their body, there choice.......it affects them, not you. and miz i like my pork chops grilled, drizzled with olive oil and some parsley thanks.



Unfortunately many women who do not opt for abortion and should of - either because they were not prepared or just couldn't handle a child - keep the child, and you know who ends up paying the price - THE CHILD.

In an ideal world where those that didn't want children opted for adoption then cool, but i've seen way too many unwanted children kept, it's a sad state of affairs and it's often because they don't feel they ahve a choice or have been pressured.

As i think i touched vaguely on before this subject is so touchy and i'm trying not to go there...





> and miz i like my pork chops grilled, drizzled with olive oil and some parsley thanks.


And about the pork chops.. i dunno if i'm gonna cook for everyone :LOL:

----------


## Mizfit

> Oh but we do. Every society puts limits on an individuals ability to act. They are called laws. At this time sadly abortion is legal...but just because something is legal..does not make it right. Just as some things that are illegal, are not wrong.




That my dear is called an opinion.

----------


## Teabagger

> see the middle east. the US, Israel, Iran, hezbollah, taliban, iraqi insurgents, and lebanon among other disagree with you as they ALL think they have the right to end life......
> 
> and as mizfit said no man has any right to tell a woman what their rights are. their body, there choice.......it affects them, not you. and miz i like my pork chops grilled, drizzled with olive oil and some parsley thanks.


You know very well killing in self defense, or to protect others is nowhere close to killing for convienance. And your wrong about abortion only affecting the woman...it affects all of us as human beings. So stop sucking up to mizfit. :LOL:

----------


## Mizfit

> You know very well killing in self defense, or to protect others is nowhere close to killing for convienance. And your wrong about abortion only affecting the woman...it affects all of us as human beings. So stop sucking up to mizfit.



How can you say that? Have you ever been preganant? do you know what it does to one's body and one's mind?

didn't think so.

And heres a question for you - how do you decide when someone is killing in self defense or to protect others- this too is all based on OPINION.

----------


## Teabagger

> That my dear is called an opinion.


No that is fact. For instance...steroids are illegal to use except for certain medically recognized needs, and in small dosages. So is it right or wrong to use them for anything but the medically recognized needs?

----------


## Mizfit

> No that is fact. For instance...steroids are illegal to use except for certain medically recognized needs, and in small dosages. So is it right or wrong to use them for anything but the medically recognized needs?



In canada - you can have steroids on you, you can't sell them. so your question must be rephrased.

----------


## SVTMuscle*

> And about the pork chops.. i dunno if i'm gonna cook for everyone


But you and I both know, im the exception  :7up:

----------


## Mizfit

here's a quote

"In Canada, personal possession of steroids is not an offence. However, a person who sells steroids for non-medical purposes can be charged by police with possessing steroids for the purposes of trafficking. "

----------


## SVTMuscle*

> here's a quote
> 
> "In Canada, personal possession of steroids is not an offence. However, a person who sells steroids for non-medical purposes can be charged by police with possessing steroids for the purposes of trafficking. "


At what point do they cross the line with possesion/purpose of dealing

----------


## Teabagger

> How can you say that? Have you ever been preganant? do you know what it does to one's body and one's mind?
> 
> didn't think so.
> 
> And heres a question for you - how do you decide when someone is killing in self defense or to protect others- this too is all based on OPINION.


No I have not been pregnant, but by the same token I have never been raped, but I can empathize with the victim without having experienced it. My answer to your first part is don't get pregnant. I am pro choice...a woman can choose to have sex or not, a woman can choose to practice safe sex or not, a woman can choose to use birth control or not, a woman can choose to keep the baby or not...women have many choices today. I just feel using abortion as a form of birth control is wrong, and barbaric.

The answer to your second part is if you can't determine what is and what is not self defense, then I certainly cannot explain it to you.

----------


## Mizfit

> At what point do they cross the line with possesion/purpose of dealing



We talk bout this on aim later

----------


## SVTMuscle*

o we will!

----------


## Mizfit

> I just feel using abortion as a form of birth control is wrong, and barbaric.


So is you imposing your beliefs on society.



> The answer to your second part is if you can't determine what is and what is not self defense, then I certainly cannot explain it to you.


If having a baby will kill a person psychologically - then Im calling abortion self defense. - see it's a slippery slope...

----------


## Phreak101

Life is consciousness. Life is experience. I'd be willing to bet that a 3 month odlf etus does not have a whole lot of experience and consciousness to be able to be considered an identity or a life.

Don't get me wrong, it saddens me that the potential for life can be snuffed out at will, but what it boils down to is that people who already have established lives must be able to exercise their rights to be in control of the lives they've established. If that means aborting a baby that cannot be properly cared for, so be it.

I don't agree with it per se, but it must be done, or it will be done illegaly and dangerously, risking the lives of countless women.

----------


## Mizfit

> Even if your not a Christian you should not be for killing babies.



Just a question, but all these unwanted children that you do not feel women have the right toa bort - are you going to be adopting all these unwanted children?

Will they become wards of the state, then one day grow up to be nuisances to society because thry had no real guidance in thier youths and grew up in a wolrd where they were unwanted and unloved.

----------


## Teabagger

> Just a question, but all these unwanted children that you do not feel women have the right toa bort - are you going to be adopting all these unwanted children?
> 
> Will they become wards of the state, then one day grow up to be nuisances to society because thry had no real guidance in thier youths and grew up in a wolrd where they were unwanted and unloved.


Why should I, or anyone else take responsibilty for any woman's irresponsiblilty. If you don't want kids thats cool...don't get pregnent...its that simple. No one wants to be responsible for their actions...like dead beat dads, or the idiot who leaves a bar drunk, gets in his car, and has an accident...it not his fault...its the bar that sold him the booze fault....someone shoots another person...it's not his fault...its the gun manufacturer, and on and on. It's all about making good decisions and taking responsibility for the bad ones you make. With all "rights" come responsibilities. This debate will not be solved here...pro abortion will stay pro abortion, and anti abortion will stay anti abortion, but in this day and age there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to have an unwanted pregancy...none. Abortion today is nothing more than birth control, something it was never intended to address.

----------


## biglouie250

> Why should I, or anyone else take responsibilty for any woman's irresponsiblilty. If you don't want kids thats cool...don't get pregnent...its that simple. No one wants to be responsible for their actions...like dead beat dads, or the idiot who leaves a bar drunk, gets in his car, and has an accident...it not his fault...its the bar that sold him the booze fault....someone shoots another person...it's not his fault...its the gun manufacturer, and on and on. It's all about making good decisions and taking responsibility for the bad ones you make. With all "rights" come responsibilities. This debate will not be solved here...pro abortion will stay pro abortion, and anti abortion will stay anti abortion, but in this day and age there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to have an unwanted pregancy...none. Abortion today is nothing more than birth control, something it was never intended to address.



and what about rape victims........ is that the womans fault as well?

and what about dead beat dads? that child that was created by 2 people is the sole responsibility of the mother? people make mistakes and we as a society love to give 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances.......

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Why should I, or anyone else take responsibilty for any woman's irresponsiblilty. If you don't want kids thats cool...don't get pregnent...its that simple. No one wants to be responsible for their actions...like dead beat dads, or the idiot who leaves a bar drunk, gets in his car, and has an accident...it not his fault...its the bar that sold him the booze fault....someone shoots another person...it's not his fault...its the gun manufacturer, and on and on. It's all about making good decisions and taking responsibility for the bad ones you make. With all "rights" come responsibilities. This debate will not be solved here...pro abortion will stay pro abortion, and anti abortion will stay anti abortion, but in this day and age there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to have an unwanted pregancy...none. Abortion today is nothing more than birth control, something it was never intended to address.


well there is always those cases where both the male and girl is responsible but shit happens. My sister got knocked up when she was on birth controll. They keept the baby though and think its the best thing that could happen to them. But no birth controll is 100%.

I look at abortion as a neccesary evil. Ban it and women will start doing it themself with coathangers and shit again.

----------


## Phreak101

> Why should I, or anyone else take responsibilty for any woman's irresponsiblilty. If you don't want kids thats cool...don't get pregnent...its that simple. No one wants to be responsible for their actions...like dead beat dads, or the idiot who leaves a bar drunk, gets in his car, and has an accident...it not his fault...its the bar that sold him the booze fault....someone shoots another person...it's not his fault...its the gun manufacturer, and on and on. It's all about making good decisions and taking responsibility for the bad ones you make. With all "rights" come responsibilities. This debate will not be solved here...pro abortion will stay pro abortion, and anti abortion will stay anti abortion, but in this day and age there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for anyone to have an unwanted pregancy...none. Abortion today is nothing more than birth control, something it was never intended to address.


In a perfect world, sure. There would be no unwanted pregnancies, no cancer, no AIDS, no war, etc. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. For now, the fact of the matter is who's rights are more important, the woman's or the unborn childs? In order to have a civilized society, the potential for abortion MUST exist, or it will lead to dangerous back alley abortions, uneducated decisions, suppressed human rights, and general anxiety and fear of having an unwanted pregnancy.

Look at steroids ! If it wasn't for this board, who knows what kind of ****ed up my rats would be. But because I have knowledgeable sources, I feel safe about my decisions. Women have doctors they can consult because abortion is legal. Again, it's sad that an unborn child will never get to experience life, but what are you going to do?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Life is consciousness. Life is experience. I'd be willing to bet that a 3 month odlf etus does not have a whole lot of experience and consciousness to be able to be considered an identity or a life.


Exactly what I think aswell. Its more like preventing the potential for a life. But wearing a condom is also preventing the potential for a life.

Im NOT saying abortion should be looked upon as wearing a condom. But I dont se that much of a ethical difference betwen preventing a sperm to reach a egg or aborting the egg just when it has started to divide. The end result is exactly the same.

I dont agree with late abortions though.

----------


## RA

> Just a question, but all these unwanted children that you do not feel women have the right toa bort - are you going to be adopting all these unwanted children?
> 
> Will they become wards of the state, then one day grow up to be nuisances to society because thry had no real guidance in thier youths and grew up in a wolrd where they were unwanted and unloved.


 

Theres a huge waiting list for babies. No need to worry.

----------


## RA

> well there is always those cases where both the male and girl is responsible but shit happens. My sister got knocked up when she was on birth controll. They keept the baby though and think its the best thing that could happen to them. But no birth controll is 100%.
> 
> I look at abortion as a neccesary evil. Ban it and women will start doing it themself with *coathangers and shit again*.


 
lol. Urban myth.

----------


## RA

> i know this is directed at johan but i cant resist.....
> all cancer? if so ill take the machiavelli approach and say that the ends justify the means and killing 100 people is better than letting millions suffer and die in the future


 
Ok, then its you and all your extended family that is chosen.

----------


## RA

> It's no one's choice, except for the person having the procedure.
> 
> and Johan is right - this type of research is beneficial in so many ways.


 
The person having the procedure cant talk yet.

----------


## Phreak101

> The person having the procedure cant talk yet.


Nor can they comprehend what the procedure is, or anything else for that matter....

----------


## RA

> aren't all the people dying of cancer innocent as well? And the numbers of those dying from cancer today, and int he future far exceed this 100 innocent people you speak of.


 
Wow. That speaks volumes. 

Ok, how many is too many. 1,000? 1,000,000? 100,000,000?

----------


## RA

> Nor can they comprehend what the procedure is, or anything else for that matter....


 
So we should kill them and harvest their stem cells. Whatever happened to protecting the innocent?

----------


## Phreak101

> Ok, then its you and all your extended family that is chosen.


Back in the day, dying for a cause such as this would be a great honor, and you and your family would be celebrated for ages to come.

The sacrifice should not be what is being scrutizined, it should be the reaction and respect of the sacrifice in this day and age that comes under the scope.

----------


## RA

> Heterosexuals go to fertility clinics for help with reproduction problems, and they frequently pay to have several eggs fertilized with sperm, and then they pay to have them frozen for future use. So right now, there are jiliions upon jillions of frozen embryos all across the country waiting to be thawed and "hatched." Only problem is, though, that the parents usually have many more eggs fertilized with sperm than they expect they'll want to use. So, unless someone comes along and volunteers to carry the embryo to full term, all those extra embryos are going to be disposed of, one way or another.
> 
> The parents could drive up to the clinic and pick up the frozen eggs, take 'em home, and bury 'em, or put 'em in the trash. Or, scientists could use the embryos to find cure for diseases. 
> 
> Right now, foreign nations are proceeding full speed in an effort to find disease cures with stem cells from these embryos. The United States, thanks to fundamentalist Christians, is not. So, unless things change, the USA is going to fall behind in medical science. We'll be behind the Koreans, Chinese, Europeans, etc. And then we'll have something else we can import from overseas -- medicine.
> 
> 
> It's up to Americans if they want to put up with this nonsense. 
> 
> -Tock


 
What your saying is laughable. Were going to be behind everyone in medical science because we lag in harvesting embryonic stem cells? Cmon tock this is horse poo.

----------


## biglouie250

> Ok, then its you and all your extended family that is chosen.


the question is obviously flawed as its not a reality.

----------


## RA

> *Back in the day, dying for a cause such as this would be a great honor, and you and your family would be celebrated for ages to come.*
> 
> The sacrifice should not be what is being scrutizined, it should be the reaction and respect of the sacrifice in this day and age that comes under the scope.


 
What day? Killing 100 innocent people is killing 100 innocent people. Nothing noble about it. Same question to you. How many is too many?

----------


## RA

> the question is obviously flawed as its not a reality.


 
The question isn't flawed its that you can't come up with the correct answer without going against the side you have chosen.

----------


## Phreak101

> What day? Killing 100 innocent people is killing 100 innocent people. Nothing noble about it. Same question to you. How many is too many?



It's not killing them if they are willing to die for the cause! People offered up their lives all the time in service of their gods for fertility, farming, war, etc. How is this mentality different?

Are you telling me we could not find 100 people willing to give their lives to cure cancer? How about 1000?

The morality you are using to argue this cause is respectable but flawed. When it comes down to it, the human race in itself is a living, breathing entity. When a human body needs to cure itself, it will destroy certain areas to protect the whole body. If this is what needed to be done to save the human race from cancer, I hardly see it as "murder".

But we are extremly off topic, back to abortion.

----------


## Phreak101

> So we should kill them and harvest their stem cells. Whatever happened to protecting the innocent?


How is it killing them if they save the lives of 10 people, especially when they will never know otherwise?

Innocence is consciousness without knowledge of evil. Embryos are not conscious, but what better way to use an unwanted embryo than to save the lives of others! I don't agree with using abortion as a lack of responsibility, quite the contrary, I think women should only be allowed so many abortions before they are forced to give their children to adoption agencies, or something along those lines. But to say aborting a fetus is the "killing of the innocent" is trivializing the deaths of truely innocent people.

----------


## RA

> It's not killing them if they are willing to die for the cause! People offered up their lives all the time in service of their gods for fertility, farming, war, etc. How is this mentality different?
> 
> Are you telling me we could not find 100 people willing to give their lives to cure cancer? How about 1000?
> 
> The morality you are using to argue this cause is respectable but flawed. When it comes down to it, the human race in itself is a living, breathing entity. When a human body needs to cure itself, it will destroy certain areas to protect the whole body. If this is what needed to be done to save the human race from cancer, I hardly see it as "murder".
> 
> *But we are extremly off topic, back to abortion*.


 
We are not off topic. We are killing innocent lives and people are now wanting to harvest their stem cells. Remember ladies and gents, we ALL started out that way. You can say its not a life but you were once the same. Does that mean your not a life?

Talking about abortion actually saddens me and normally I avoid the subject.

----------


## Phreak101

> We are not off topic. We are killing innocent lives and people are now wanting to harvest their stem cells. Remember ladies and gents, we ALL started out that way. You can say its not a life but you were once the same. Does that mean your not a life?
> 
> Talking about abortion actually saddens me and normally I avoid the subject.


What you are doing is taking a stance on the fact that embryos are life, when in fact they are not! Embryos are a future human life, but an embryo cannot survive on it's own without assistance from it's mother or science. 

It is a religious viewpoint that conception = life. Life, again, is CONSCIOUSNESS. It is EXPERIENCE. If abortion is already legal, explain to me why these embryos should be tossed in the trash rather than used to try to further humanity as a whole.

You make it sound as if evil scientists are kidnapping women and stealing their babies to take over the world.

I am a life because I have LIVED my life. I am a conscious entity aware that I make my own decisions and determine my own fate. My parents instilled in me morals and values and I have become self aware. Long story short, I understand I exist. A fetus does not. Miscarriages happen too, is that the killing of an innocent life?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> How is it killing them if they save the lives of 10 people, especially when they will never know otherwise?
> 
> Innocence is consciousness without knowledge of evil. Embryos are not conscious, but what better way to use an unwanted embryo than to save the lives of others! I don't agree with using abortion as a lack of responsibility, quite the contrary, I think women should only be allowed so many abortions before they are forced to give their children to adoption agencies, or something along those lines. But to say aborting a fetus is the "killing of the innocent" is trivializing the deaths of truely innocent people.



Good point. 

What if not using that embryo means 10 people would die. Does that one embryo have more right to live than those 10 people?

----------


## RA

> *What you are doing is taking a stance on the fact that embryos are life, when in fact they are not! Embryos are a future human life, but an embryo cannot survive on it's own without assistance from it's mother or science.* 
> 
> It is a religious viewpoint that conception = life. Life, again, is CONSCIOUSNESS. It is EXPERIENCE. If abortion is already legal, explain to me why these embryos should be tossed in the trash rather than used to try to further humanity as a whole.
> 
> You make it sound as if evil scientists are kidnapping women and stealing their babies to take over the world.
> 
> I am a life because I have LIVED my life. I am a conscious entity aware that I make my own decisions and determine my own fate. My parents instilled in me morals and values and I have become self aware. Long story short, I understand I exist. A fetus does not. Miscarriages happen too, is that the killing of an innocent life?


 


NEITHER CAN A BABY! 

And tell me this one. If we are only the sum of our experiences then why does a baby search for its mothers nipple when its born?

----------


## RA

> Good point. 
> 
> What if not using that embryo means 10 people would die. Does that one embryo have more right to live than those 10 people?


Not more. Just as much right.

----------


## Mizfit

> NEITHER CAN A BABY! 
> 
> And tell me this one. If we are only the sum of our experiences then why does a baby search for its mothers nipple when its born?


If what your trying to allude to is right then all women would have natural nuturing instincts and would not even consider abortion.

But that is not the case, and there isa real need for cell harvesting.

----------


## Phreak101

> NEITHER CAN A BABY! 
> 
> And tell me this one. If we are only the sum of our experiences then why does a baby search for its mothers nipple when its born?


Didn't you see the story about the wolf lady on yahoo news the other day? She was abandoned by her parents in Russia and, no joke, was found when she was 15 running around on all fours growling and barking like a dog. She now leads a somewhat normal life but, no embryo could do that.

Technically speaking, a baby CAN survive on its own, it will just starve, freeze, etc without assistance, but the fact is it CAN survive outside the womb, a fetus cannot.

As far as your last statement, instinct! Are you saying that your cognitive ability and intelligence is the same as a baby?? Of course not, because you ARE the sum of your experiences. I'm sure no baby has injected a gram of test into it's ass either!  :LOL:

----------


## RA

> If what your trying to allude to is right then all women would have natural nuturing instincts and would not even consider abortion.
> 
> But that is not the case, and there isa real need for cell harvesting.


 
Tell me one woman who had an abortion that said it was mentally easy. I believe women do have the instinct, they just fight against it.

----------


## Phreak101

> Not more. Just as much right.


How can the rights of 10 people be equal to one fetus? If anything, the lives of the people that have been touched by the 10 people that will die without the fetus serve as more collateral than just the life of the fetus itself. If those 10 people die so that fetus may live, a lot more lives will be affected negatively.

----------


## Mizfit

> Tell me one woman who had an abortion that said it was mentally easy. I believe women do have the instinct, they just fight against it.


I can show you women who should have had one - the children that are products of an unwanted pregnancy that they kept for different reasons speak to those people, then get back to me.

----------


## RA

> Didn't you see the story about the wolf lady on yahoo news the other day? She was abandoned by her parents in Russia and, no joke, was found when she was 15 running around on all fours growling and barking like a dog. She now leads a somewhat normal life but, no embryo could do that.
> 
> Technically speaking, a baby CAN survive on its own, it will just starve, freeze, etc without assistance, but the fact is it CAN survive outside the womb, a fetus cannot.
> 
> As far as your last statement, instinct! Are you saying that your cognitive ability and intelligence is the same as a baby?? Of course not, because you ARE the sum of your experiences. I'm sure no baby has injected a gram of test into it's ass either!


 
Ok, embryo without help dies...baby without help dies. Your just arguing semantics.

----------


## RA

> How can the rights of 10 people be equal to one fetus? If anything, the lives of the people that have been touched by the 10 people that will die without the fetus serve as more collateral than just the life of the fetus itself. If those 10 people die so that fetus may live, a lot more lives will be affected negatively.


 
I dont agree with sacrificing the innocent for any reason.

----------


## RA

> I can show you women who should have had one - the children that are products of an unwanted pregnancy that they kept for different reasons speak to those people, then get back to me.


 
I know several very well. I'm certain they would choose life over death.

----------


## Phreak101

> Ok, embryo without help dies...baby without help dies. Your just arguing semantics.



Not true! Embryos are missing many key life functions that develop later in the in-utero process. You are missing my point. An embryo cannot survive in ANY natural situation for ANY period of time, a baby can at least live a few days, hence it is ALIVE.

----------


## Phreak101

> I dont agree with sacrificing the innocent for any reason.



Apparently not. I don't believe it in either, but that does not prevent it from being necessary sometimes.

----------


## RA

> I can show you women who should have had one - the children that are products of an unwanted pregnancy that they kept for different reasons speak to those people, then get back to me.


 
This one in particular was born of a 15 year olds romp in the park bushes. She had to drop out of school and the father didn't want to have anything to do with the child. The mother admits she wanted an abortion but the parents would not allow it. 

It was tough for them but now as the child is an adult they are super close. The mother went back to school and college to be a nurse. She said her daughter was her inspiration.

----------


## Tucc

deleted... :Evil2:

----------


## Tucc

> What you are doing is taking a stance on the fact that embryos are life, when in fact they are not! Embryos are a future human life, but an embryo cannot survive on it's own without assistance from it's mother or science. 
> 
> It is a religious viewpoint that conception = life. Life, again, is CONSCIOUSNESS. It is EXPERIENCE. If abortion is already legal, explain to me why these embryos should be tossed in the trash rather than used to try to further humanity as a whole.
> 
> You make it sound as if evil scientists are kidnapping women and stealing their babies to take over the world.
> 
> I am a life because I have LIVED my life. I am a conscious entity aware that I make my own decisions and determine my own fate. My parents instilled in me morals and values and I have become self aware. Long story short, I understand I exist. A fetus does not. Miscarriages happen too, is that the killing of an innocent life?



Well put bro... :Evil2:

----------


## Mizfit

> This one in particular was born of a 15 year olds romp in the park bushes. She had to drop out of school and the father didn't want to have anything to do with the child. The mother admits she wanted an abortion but the parents would not allow it. 
> 
> It was tough for them but now as the child is an adult they are super close. The mother went back to school and college to be a nurse. She said her daughter was her inspiration.


Hows this for inspiring - child is born, even though it is not wanted it is kept.

The mother resents the child for its entire growing up years, does very little nuturing and blames the child for every single chance that she may have missed - including not going to school, possible relationship break up, not being able to go out, and just about anything under the sun.

The child is neglected, mistreated - and grows up with so much hate that they act out on the rest of society through violence, ignorance and blatant disprect for everyone and everything in it.

----------


## The OutLord

> Wow..
> 
> I won't get into the debate about this, but i will say this - you or anyone else has no right to tell me what my rights as a woman are.



I understand AND suport you.


To Decide over a nother human 
just becouas the others have a nother view of life..!
No body have force The "Deciding people" To do a Abort.
But if other ordinary people whants to... let them do that then
Every thing els is in My eye`s ------------>Megalomani<---------------

Megalomani = Storhetsvansinne = megalomani-a = megalomanía = 
мания величия = μεγαλομανία = جنون العَظَمة = büyüklük hastalığı = .

want to get in controll of others in obedience
and the ambition is to save the world in to the rigth way and every thing els is rong!!.

Ther Is ALOT of rank in this Megalomani = Storhetsvansinne = megalomani-a = megalomanía = мания величия = μεγαλομανία = جنون العَظَمة = büyüklük hastalığı .

Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussain and Stalin and Polpot , KKK and I am Sure Usama Bin Ladin got this behaviour to but this people I mention before as Hitler is the Rank that is in the EXTREM circumstance.

----------


## stee

it dont really matter what the western world thinks. 
China will still carrry on their research and one day will be the front runners. 

The thing with the USA as it always has been was in competition with the former soviet union. 
Their economy was rotting from the inside out hence the main reason tehy never really triumphed with many "races". 
The difference in this "race" is that the Chiniese economy is booming, America may stem things for a while with the developments and so may the EU but give it time n we will be able to go on holiday to gwangzhou to have a new arm or leg etc.

----------


## mcpeepants

> In reply to your post...I never once mentioned "soul", as a condition of life, you did. You try to bring religion into this, I don't. There is right and wrong in the universe, regardless of which religion, if any, you subscribe to.


There is no right or wrong (morality wise) in the universe. The only goal of any creature is to survive. Everything else is secondary.

----------


## stee

I cant see anyones argument here. 
If i smash my car or bike for example, assuming i have insurance what is the harm in the car or bike going to the breakers yard after i get payed out. Some one could make do with the parts as its no good to me anymore.

If i had an abortion what is the harm in the fetus going to the fetus farm?
me having any dispostion about the fetus being cultivated would just be immature, like the stuff goes on in the play ground. 
"you cant have this toy because it is mine, but i dont want it so i am going to throw it in the bin"

----------


## Phreak101

> There is no right or wrong (morality wise) in the universe. The only goal of any creature is to survive. Everything else is secondary.


This usually would be correct, and in most cases I would agree with you, but morals are what seperate us from animals. Since we can understand the consequences of our actions before they happen, morality is how we as civilized people can still carry on the survival of our species without infringing on natural law or the natural rights of other people.

In this case, the moral issue stems (no pun intended) from the question of is the fetus alive or not? If it is, the moral issue is killing the unborn child, if it is not, there is no moral issue. This is where the argument starts to go in circles, based on opinion more than science.

Sure our goal is to survive, but it is morals that keeps us from destroying each other in the fight for survival.

----------


## mcpeepants

> This usually would be correct, and in most cases I would agree with you, but morals are what seperate us from animals. Since we can understand the consequences of our actions before they happen, morality is how we as civilized people can still carry on the survival of our species without infringing on or the natural rights of other people.
> 
> In this case, the moral issue stems (no pun intended) from the question of is the fetus alive or not? If it is, the moral issue is killing the unborn child, if it is not, there is no moral issue. This is where the argument starts to go in circles, based on opinion more than science.
> 
> Sure our goal is to survive, but it is morals that keeps us from destroying each other in the fight for survival.


I agree with most of what your saying, just knit picking some of the edges. Morality confuses me. The way it's used sometimes, it's doesn't seem like that what seperates us from animals. In nature, symbiosis (the beneficial kind) occurs all the time and it doesn't appear to involve morals. You watch my back and i'll watch yours. You don't need morals to have an interest in other people surviving. But then I again, I don't see how you could have a large group of people cooperating without some kind of moral code (ants and termites do it though).

----------


## Teabagger

OK. There seem to be some on here that can't agree life begins at conception, and there are others that it doesn't matter to. For those of you who do not believe life begins at conception I have a question...when does life begin?? At what developmental stage does the fetus magically become "alive", and thus worthy of protecting against murder? I want you to respond with the exact moment in time...more specfic than the hour, minute, or second. When is the switch flipped and that nebulous blob of cells suddenly become human? 

And for those on here that condition "life" on having experience I assume that abortion is within a womans right up until the exact second that baby's head exits the vagina and takes it first breath...am I correct in assuming this is your stance, which is in line with your "life is experience" test?

Someone mentioned a miscarriage and tried to somehow tie it to abortion...a miscarriage is nature's way of terminating a "blob of cells" that had no chance of even surviving the gestation period. It required no act by the woman or a third party.

----------


## Tock

> What your saying is laughable. Were going to be behind everyone in medical science because we lag in harvesting embryonic stem cells? Cmon tock this is horse poo.


No, we won't be behind everyone else in the sciences because of this one thing. 
We will, however, end up behind everyone else in this major science because of the dogmatic Christian fundamentalists. And if they have their way, we'll lag behind other nations in other sciences because Christian fundamentalism is anti-science in other fields as well.

-Tock

----------


## Tock

> ..when does life begin.


Depends on how you want to define "life."

Strictly speaking, I don't think there is any such thing as "life," a sort of mystic essense of a biological entity that differentiates it from an inanimate object like a rock. 
IMHO, you and I and everything in the universe are made of atoms and molecules that act and react to each other. And that's all there is.

----------


## Logan13

> I agree with most of what your saying, just knit picking some of the edges. Morality confuses me. The way it's used sometimes, it's doesn't seem like that what seperates us from animals. In nature, symbiosis (the beneficial kind) occurs all the time and it doesn't appear to involve morals. You watch my back and i'll watch yours. You don't need morals to have an interest in other people surviving. But then I again, I don't see how you could have a large group of people cooperating without some kind of moral code (ants and termites do it though).


How do you relate morality and a symbiotic relationship? Please look up the word moral.

----------


## The OutLord

> OK. There seem to be some on here that can't agree life begins at conception, and there are others that it doesn't matter to. For those of you who do not believe life begins at conception I have a question...when does life begin??.


( 1 )When Life have develop the first step to controll sytem for the own being. 

( 2 )Life have begin when It is aware of the surroundings

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> OK. There seem to be some on here that can't agree life begins at conception, and there are others that it doesn't matter to. For those of you who do not believe life begins at conception I have a question...when does life begin??


When the featus becomes aware. When it has started to develop sensory organs, when it has started to develop a brain. Thats when its capabel to feel and think and becomes aware.




> At what developmental stage does the fetus magically become "alive", and thus worthy of protecting against murder? I want you to respond with the exact moment in time...more specfic than the hour, minute, or second. When is the switch flipped and that nebulous blob of cells suddenly become human?


Well you know aswell as I do that its impossible for any layman here to do that when not even the experts can come to a agreement. 
But I do know that a bunch of cells after 3-4 days isnt aware, has no brain, has no sensory organs, experience nothing. That is the point of time that is relevalt to this thread because that is when its extracted for steem cell research. Its not even refered to as a featus in that stage. Only a blastocyte.




> And for those on here that condition "life" on having experience I assume that abortion is within a womans right up until the exact second that baby's head exits the vagina and takes it first breath...am I correct in assuming this is your stance, which is in line with your "life is experience" test?


I dont speak for everyone else. But its not a correct assumption in my eyes. Later abortions is not ok.

----------


## mcpeepants

> How do you relate morality and a symbiotic relationship? Please look up the word moral.


I was just trying to say that an animal can want to the ensure the survival of another with the need for morality. Beneficial symbiotic behavior is an example of such a case.

----------


## RA

> Hows this for inspiring - child is born, even though it is not wanted it is kept.
> 
> The mother resents the child for its entire growing up years, does very little nuturing and blames the child for every single chance that she may have missed - including not going to school, possible relationship break up, not being able to go out, and just about anything under the sun.
> 
> The child is neglected, mistreated - and grows up with so much hate that they act out on the rest of society through violence, ignorance and blatant disprect for everyone and everything in it.


 
So that child should have been killed? :Hmmmm:  

I'm not sure what kind of fictional story you could tell me that would be worse than death.

----------


## RA

> I was just trying to say that an animal can want to the ensure the survival of another with the need for morality. Beneficial symbiotic behavior is an example of such a case.


 
Your implying a choice.

----------


## Mizfit

> So that child should have been killed? 
> 
> I'm not sure what kind of fictional story you could tell me that would be worse than death.



I don't see where your coming from and you don't see where i'm coming from. It's pretty simple , and if that child hadn't ever known life then they wouldn't know the difference.

and hate to tell you this, this is not fiction - This world we live in is not a fairytale for everyone.

----------


## RA

> I don't see where your coming from and you don't see where i'm coming from. It's pretty simple , and if that child hadn't ever known life then they wouldn't know the difference.
> 
> and hate to tell you this, this is not fiction - This world we live in is not a fairytale for everyone.


I do see where your coming from but by your rationale we could say any baby that has a parent making less then 20k should also be aborted because their quality of life is less then if their parents made 100k.

----------


## RA

> No, we won't be behind everyone else in the sciences because of this one thing. 
> We will, however, end up behind everyone else in this major science because of the dogmatic Christian fundamentalists. And if they have their way, we'll lag behind other nations in other sciences because Christian fundamentalism is anti-science in other fields as well.
> 
> -Tock


 
People like you have done a pretty good PR job demonizing religion. They have deeply held beliefs so they are not supposed to fight for them?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

since we are playing mindgames already.

roid what if you had a sic kid, fataly sic, and the doc tells you that a embryonic stem cell treatment could save her. Would you say no to that treatment because it means a embryo has to die?

----------


## Mizfit

> I do see where your coming from but by your rationale we could say any baby that has a parent making less then 20k should also be aborted because their quality of life is less then if their parents made 100k.



living in poverty and living in a home where yuo aren't wanted are two totalyl different animals.

The bonds one develops as children are the stepping stones to relationships for the rest of our lives - how we relate to one another, how we intereact and so on.... If these are not firmly established, then it is very difficult to get one's footings. - Google it..

----------


## Phreak101

> I agree with most of what your saying, just knit picking some of the edges. Morality confuses me. The way it's used sometimes, it's doesn't seem like that what seperates us from animals. In nature, symbiosis (the beneficial kind) occurs all the time and it doesn't appear to involve morals. You watch my back and i'll watch yours. You don't need morals to have an interest in other people surviving. But then I again, I don't see how you could have a large group of people cooperating without some kind of moral code (ants and termites do it though).



That's called ethics, which is the enforcement of basic human morals  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Phreak101

> OK. There seem to be some on here that can't agree life begins at conception, and there are others that it doesn't matter to. For those of you who do not believe life begins at conception I have a question...when does life begin?? At what developmental stage does the fetus magically become "alive", and thus worthy of protecting against murder? I want you to respond with the exact moment in time...more specfic than the hour, minute, or second. When is the switch flipped and that nebulous blob of cells suddenly become human? 
> 
> *No one knows, and asking us to respond with the exact moment of time is unreasonable. Besides, none of us is proposing to use a third trimester baby for stem cells, the threshold for the age of an embryo would be long before either of us could agree that brain activity and awareness exists.*
> 
> And for those on here that condition "life" on having experience I assume that abortion is within a womans right up until the exact second that baby's head exits the vagina and takes it first breath...am I correct in assuming this is your stance, which is in line with your "life is experience" test?
> 
> *No need for drama, empathy is a wonderful thing don't you think? You know everyone here would do their best to make the choice as early as possible.*
> 
> 
> ...



Life is experience, it is awareness, blobs of cells are not aware. A human needs sensory organs to experience and observe, and those organs come into play long after any of us would think about aborting a baby and using it in the name of science.

----------


## RA

> living in poverty and living in a home where yuo aren't wanted are two totalyl different animals.
> 
> The bonds one develops as children are the stepping stones to relationships for the rest of our lives - how we relate to one another, how we intereact and so on.... If these are not firmly established, then it is very difficult to get one's footings. - Google it..


 
lol, google it. 

I agree with what you said but a difficult life would be preferable to no life at all IMO.

----------


## RA

> Life is experience, it is awareness, blobs of cells are not aware. A human needs sensory organs to experience and observe, and those organs come into play long after any of us would think about aborting a baby and using it in the name of science.


 
If you dont think that women have abortions when the child looks fully formed then you are mis-informed. At 13 weeks my daughter was spinning and jumping. You could see fingers, toes, etc.

----------


## stee

I guess it is different when you actually want to have the chid thought isnt it.
If you didnt wantr to have a baby im sure you wouldnt take 13weeks to decide weather or not you want to have it.
Not to mention abortion after 12weeks is illegal in most counties.

I said to my GF ages ago, people who cannot prove that they could not support a family without the sate handouts should not be aloowed to have children.
Me and my GF are both profesional people but we couldnt even consider to have children just this instant as we arent financially sound. 
All that doesnt seem to bother lil mary rotten crotch who has been taking cock since she was 12 and had 4 kids by the time shes 17, let the state pay for her and the walfare of her little kids who will more than likley end up the same as her.

----------


## RA

There are women who dont even find out until 13 weeks. Its legal to have an abortion later than that in the U.S. 

Also in the U.S. there are organizations to help women out who dont opt for abortion.

----------


## stee

there in the uk also. but most doctors wont carry aout a termination after 12 weeks.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

reposting this because I think people missed this.

roid and tea and everyone else against embryonic stem cell reserch.
What if you had a sic kid, fataly sic, and the doc tells you that a embryonic stem cell treatment could save her. Would you say no to that treatment because it means a embryo has to die?

----------


## Phreak101

> If you dont think that women have abortions when the child looks fully formed then you are mis-informed. At 13 weeks my daughter was spinning and jumping. You could see fingers, toes, etc.


I never said they didn't, I said I'm sure all of us would make the decision as early as possible. I never condoned having an abortion after the first trimester.

Some of you on here need to realize that supporting the right to abortion does not necessarily mean that it is condoned or encouraged.

----------


## stee

i was actually gonna quote u on a good question johan

----------


## RA

> reposting this because I think people missed this.
> 
> roid and tea and everyone else against embryonic stem cell reserch.
> What if you had a sic kid, fataly sic, and the doc tells you that a embryonic stem cell treatment could save her. Would you say no to that treatment because it means a embryo has to die?


 
Damn you Johan. You had to bring children in..grrr

----------


## RA

Lets just say if I were sick I would refuse them harvesting like some hyena...

But......I'm sure there isn't anything I would not do for my children.

----------


## mcpeepants

> Your implying a choice.


It could be by choice or by instinct

----------


## mcpeepants

> That's called ethics, which is the enforcement of basic human morals


But this behavior and order is done by creatures like ants and termites that don't appear to have any morals or ethnics. just some chemical way of enforcing order.

----------


## Phreak101

> But this behavior and order is done by creatures like ants and termites that don't appear to have any morals or ethnics. just some chemical way of enforcing order.


Well there are theories that colonies share a universal consciousness among all of them even thought they are seperate. The reason they cooperate is because instinctually every member of the colony has a job that in the end benefits the colony and the queen.

Humans on the other hand know they have a choice in the matter and can choose to go one way or the other. Morality involves those choices, ethics enforces the morals.

----------


## mcpeepants

> Well there are theories that colonies share a universal consciousness among all of them even thought they are seperate. The reason they cooperate is because instinctually every member of the colony has a job that in the end benefits the colony and the queen.
> 
> Humans on the other hand know they have a choice in the matter and can choose to go one way or the other. Morality involves those choices, ethics enforces the morals.


I agree again with most of your point. Accept morality doesn't appear to be an exclusive choices. Examples include lion males choosing to form alliances in order to increase the chances of taking over a pride or a dolphin chooses whether or not to saving a drowning human. And it seems that morals and ethics have to be somewhat involved in any social animal, particularly mammals.

And things aren't allow sweet in insects colonies. They usually cooperate but power struggles do occurs. I think in paper wasps each wasp want's to lay it's eggs but usually one female dominates and prevents the other from laying there eggs. This is still beneficial sinces the wasps are all sisters so there dna is passed and more of the larva survives. However, if the dominate wasps gets weak, others would gladly take her place. I saw this in a nature program by David Attenborough "Life in the Undergrowth."

----------


## Tock

> People like you have done a pretty good PR job demonizing religion.



Christians have already done a pretty good job of "demonizing" religion.

Used to be folks couldn't do all sorts of things because of Christian's rules, like . . .
1) heterosexuals couldn't have oral sex
2) gays couldn't have any sex
3) no one could have sex by themselves
4) stores had to shut down on Sunday 
5) only people who profess beleif in God are allowed to hold public office in many states (like Texas) right now == used to be that you not only had to be Christian to hold office, but you had to be a particular denomination of Christian, depending on which state you were in.
6) it's illegal to publicly criticize the Bible in Arkansas
7) it used to be illegal to celebrate Christmas in colonial Massachusetts
8) it used to be that public schools could require even Jewish kids and atheist kids to pray a Christian prayer -- now, government employees can no longer force children to do so.
9) Remember the Crusades? 
10) Remember "Indulgences?"

Ten of these is enough . . . there's plenty more, for sure. Like the many Christians who loudly and publicly denounce sexual immorality are themselves patrons of sex workers, and many have extramarital affairs, sometimes with minors. Jimmy Swaggart was the most fun one of all . . . 








> They have deeply held beliefs so they are not supposed to fight for them?


Adolph Hitler had deeply held beleifs. Should he have fought for those?

Not every deeply held beleif is worth fighting for. Wisdom tells you when you've got one that is.

----------


## Teabagger

You have some real issues with sexuality don't you? Sex and religion, sex and religion. I'm not taking the opportunity to bash gays at every turn...but you seem to thrive on bashing breeders, (isn't that the gay communities slur name for hetrosexuals.) who happen to have faith in something beyond their own gonads and lust. 

Give it a break...the drum head you keep beating is getting worn out...

----------


## Tock

> You have some real issues with sexuality don't you? Sex and religion, sex and religion. I'm not taking the opportunity to bash gays at every turn...but you seem to thrive on bashing breeders, (isn't that the gay communities slur name for hetrosexuals.) who happen to have faith in something beyond their own gonads and lust. 
> 
> Give it a break...the drum head you keep beating is getting worn out...


Huh? Where did this come from?

Most of the flaws of religion I mentioned did _not_ mention sex (still, you must admit that the christian community sure would like to tell you when, where, and how you have sex), yet you seem to zero in on these few comments. 

Huh . . . 

-Tock

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Lets just say if I were sick I would refuse them harvesting like some hyena...
> 
> But......I'm sure there isn't anything I would not do for my children.


reason I asked that is because in the US that chooise is already made for parents and I sure dont want to se the same happen in the EU....

----------


## Mizfit

> Huh? Where did this come from?
> 
> Most of the flaws of religion I mentioned did _not_ mention sex (still, you must admit that the christian community sure would like to tell you when, where, and how you have sex), yet you seem to zero in on these few comments. 
> 
> Huh . . . 
> 
> -Tock


If the bible is read and believed word for word - even looking at another in a sexual way, or having any type of sexual though is fornication - a sin.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> If the bible is read and believed word for word - even looking at another in a sexual way, or having any type of sexual though is fornication - a sin.


I guess your avatars are leading all of AR to damnation. Bad girl :LOL:

----------


## Mizfit

> I guess your avatars are leading all of AR to damnation. Bad girl


Bless me father.. for i have sinned.. :AaGreen22:  J/k

I even got a cross on my back - so i'm church approved  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## RA

> Christians have already done a pretty good job of "demonizing" religion.
> 
> Used to be folks couldn't do all sorts of things because of Christian's rules, like . . .
> 1) heterosexuals couldn't have oral sex
> 2) gays couldn't have any sex
> 3) no one could have sex by themselves
> 4) stores had to shut down on Sunday 
> 5) only people who profess beleif in God are allowed to hold public office in many states (like Texas) right now == used to be that you not only had to be Christian to hold office, but you had to be a particular denomination of Christian, depending on which state you were in.
> 6) it's illegal to publicly criticize the Bible in Arkansas
> ...


 
*Thats exactly why I disagree with you.*

----------


## RA

> reason I asked that is because in the US that chooise is already made for parents and I sure dont want to se the same happen in the EU....


 
Very clever. I still don't think it's right. :Wink/Grin:

----------


## RA

> I guess your avatars are leading all of AR to damnation. Bad girl


 
 :Evil2:

----------


## MinkyGirl

> If the bible is read and believed word for word - even looking at another in a sexual way, or having any type of sexual though is fornication - a sin.


Good point! 

And if the arguement is abortion is wrong because it takes a life that God has intended to be, then:

1. Fertility treatments are just as wrong as abortion. If God gives children people for a reason, he must withhold them for a reason too. 

2. Medical treatment is also just as wrong as abortion. If God gives someone a sickness, they should accept it as His will. He must have a reason for wanting people to suffer or die.

BUT I don't see anyone saying that those two things should be illegal.

----------


## Tock

> _ There are hypocrits in all walks of life. Why should televangelists be any different._


I wholeheartedly agree with you on this question.
Televangelists are no different from anyone else, _including the people they denounce and criticize._ 







> You dont believe what they are saying anyway but then you stand back and say HA when they make a mistake. Like you've never made a mistake tock? I smell a hypocrite.


Well, whenever a famous Christian preaches strongly against sexual immorality, and specifically against people like me, and that same preacher gets caught patronizing hookers in a sleazy hotel, of course that's more than just a "mistake." That's what you might call "fraud," "hypocrisy," or just plain "sleazy," and of course I'm gonna point out what's going on.
Try to explain it away all you like, it makes no difference to me. Defend the practice all you like, makes no difference to me. All it does is demonstrate just how much "forgiveness" (rationalization) Christian leaders get. And it makes the whole religion look bad.










> The problem is that religious people are still people. Not perfect. Apparently you expect them to be because they strive for something greater. [/I]


Well, when professional Christians say they're against sexual immorality on Sunday and they hire a hooker on Monday night, I wouldn't say that they were "striving for something greater." I'd say that there was something seriously wrong with them. And that they were not honest people, not the sort of folks who were apt to say things worth listening to.

Again, when Christians needlessly interfere with other people's lives, passing laws to make non-Christians obey Old Testament rules regarding the Sabbath, or passing laws banning inter-racial marriage, or prohibiting a married couple from enjoying oral sex, I'd say those Christians were being nothing more than busy-bodies, meddling in things they shouldn't. I sure wouldn't think they were "striving for something greater."

But go ahead and disagree with me all you like.  :Icon Rolleyes:  
I favor individual freedoms, casting off the shackles of religious foolishness. I guess you think it's ok, so long as it's done by people who are "striving for something greater."
-Tock

----------


## Tock

> I'm not taking the opportunity to bash gays at every turn...but you seem to thrive on bashing breeders, (isn't that the gay communities slur name for hetrosexuals.)..


Actually, I never did "bash breeders." 

Dunno why you accuse me of that . . . got any quotes? Or is this just another attempt to turn attention away from the subject at hand?

----------


## Teabagger

You paint every person of faith with the same brush as a Jimmy Swaggert or some other fraud. Perhaps all homosexuals should be painted with the same brush as the supporters and members of NAMBLA? 

You have certainly made bashing comments about hetrosexuals before, but I am certainly not going to waste my time searching through your past posts to point them out...regular readers and posters have seen and read them. 

You have the issues here...I could care less what your sexual orientation is, and even less what you do in the privacy of your home. We agree the tv crusaders are most likely frauds, there have been many in the past, we agree the homosexual, child molesting Catholic priests are scum and fakers. But what we don't agree on is just because there are some who defraud people by their false profession of faith does not mean Gods laws are invalid. 

You have made your choices and decided what you believe in or not, cool...now live with the fact your lifestlye will probably never be accepted to the level you would want...and why is that....because the majority of people believe the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and unnatural. Don't be fooled into thinking NYC, San Francisco or Atlanta are representative of this countrys thinking in regards to homosexuality. 

Through my years I have known quite a few homosexuals, a couple of them in my extended family, and liked most of them, thought they were good people and got along fine. The ones I didn't like had nothing to do with being gay or not, they were just plain old run of the mill assholes.

So just because some of us believe in a God, and his laws, don't assume we are all haters of gays. I hate the lifstyle, but not the person. There...

----------


## RA

> I wholeheartedly agree with you on this question.
> Televangelists are no different from anyone else, _including the people they denounce and criticize._ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, whenever a famous Christian preaches strongly against sexual immorality, and specifically against people like me, and that same preacher gets caught patronizing hookers in a sleazy hotel, of course that's more than just a "mistake." That's what you might call "fraud," "hypocrisy," or just plain "sleazy," and of course I'm gonna point out what's going on.
> Try to explain it away all you like, it makes no difference to me. Defend the practice all you like, makes no difference to me. All it does is demonstrate just how much "forgiveness" (rationalization) Christian leaders get. And it makes the whole religion look bad.
> ...


 
Your forgetting that there are people who live their faith. Billy Graham for example. He has all the opinions you stated yet hires no hooker on Monday night.

----------


## Tock

> Your forgetting that there are people who live their faith. Billy Graham for example. He has all the opinions you stated yet hires no hooker on Monday night.


True. But one example does not make a rule.



Nevertheless, other people who live their faith are responsible for the conditions I outlined previously:

---------------------------------
_Used to be folks couldn't do all sorts of things because of Christian's rules, like . . .
1) heterosexuals couldn't have oral sex
2) gays couldn't have any sex
3) no one could have sex by themselves
4) stores had to shut down on Sunday 
5) only people who profess beleif in God are allowed to hold public office in many states (like Texas) right now == used to be that you not only had to be Christian to hold office, but you had to be a particular denomination of Christian, depending on which state you were in.
6) it's illegal to publicly criticize the Bible in Arkansas
7) it used to be illegal to celebrate Christmas in colonial Massachusetts
8) it used to be that public schools could require even Jewish kids and atheist kids to pray a Christian prayer -- now, government employees can no longer (legally, anyway) force children to do so.
9) Remember the Crusades? 
10) Remember "Indulgences?"_---------------------------------------------------

. . . and others.


Christians shouldn't require non-Christians to conform to their religion. They should not use government as a tool to force people to practice their religion. But, they do. And until they stop, they deserve a good  :Nutkick:   : 893Buttkick Thumb:

----------


## Tock

> So just because some of us believe in a God, and his laws, don't assume we are all haters of gays. I hate the lifstyle, but not the person. There...


And just because some of you beleive in a god, and its laws, doesn't mean that the one you chose even exists, or that the rules you subscribe to are valid. 

As far as heterosexuals go, rest assured, though I, too, hate the lifestyle, I don't hate the person.

We have much in common . . .

----------


## Teabagger

Great response knobjobber. Almost as good as this one... :1hifu:  

I heard on here somewhere Tock rhymed with C_ _ _ !! :LOL:

----------


## LX-1

> and biomed's to find a way to make me live 500 years.


wonder what kind of effect on world population and economics that would have if your average guy or woman from a somewhat developed country could extend their life that long. even extending the average maybe just a couple decades or so would probably have a big impact.not so much a good thing.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> wonder what kind of effect on world population and economics that would have if your average guy or woman from a somewhat developed country could extend their life that long. even extending the average maybe just a couple decades or so would probably have a big impact.not so much a good thing.


well the population of developed countries are not realy increasing. If we could live longer chanses are many women would push back getting a child even further so I think it would even itself out.

The more educated a people get the less children they have.

----------


## Logan13

> well the population of developed countries are not realy increasing. If we could live longer chanses are many women would push back getting a child even further so I think it would even itself out.
> 
> The more educated a people get the less children they have.


Very insightful Johan.

----------

