[mydog8mymac]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

You seriously need some competent mental health professional to handle your case.

[JLFanboy]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Can you imagine a father who would deny their child a therapy that would cure them of diabetes or allow them to walk again after a spinal cord injury? Would you deny your child a cure all for the sake of a few cells in a petri dish? Absolutely no way.

Exactly.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
As soon as the first cure is found from stem cell research, all this moaning and ethical high-mindedness and political back-fighting is going to fall faster than Enron stock. No politician is going to want to be seen standing in the way of a cure for people suffering. There is no way they'll survive in the political arena.

That's really the bottom line.

How easy we forget religious conservatives were very against organ transplants (all religons) in the very beginning when it wasn't working. Even condemning the idea. It was 'against god's will'. 'playing god'. 'taking medicine to far'.

Then when it started working... it's a good thing according to pretty much all faiths to donate organs when you die.

A complete about face. Now it's a very rare person who's morally offended by organ transplants. And in those cases, it's normally the heart that they believe is immoral to transplant (for symbolic purposes).

I highly doubt anyone here's for a ban against heart transplants.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
That's really the bottom line.

How easy we forget religious conservatives were very against organ transplants (all religons) in the very beginning when it wasn't working. Even condemning the idea. It was 'against god's will'. 'playing god'. 'taking medicine to far'.

Then when it started working... it's a good thing according to pretty much all faiths to donate organs when you die.

Great example.

It's been a complete about face. As has been their stand on IVF.

Consistency isn't the hallmark of religions view of science. If we allowed religious conservatives to control scientific research the Sun would still be be circling the Earth.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:

Consistency isn't the hallmark of religions view of science. If we allowed religious conservatives to control scientific research the Sun would still be be circling the Earth.

You know the vatican actually has an astronomer on staff! Seriously.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article966.html

a little change of pace from how they treated Galileo.

(above is actually a very good read. quite interesting for anyone remotely interested in space, religion, or history).

[Mr. Bob]

Saying a fetus or embryo is not a person is the same thing as saying an infant is not either. That is the problem. If you think a person is determined by their developmental stage, then you are being hypocritical, because you were once in that developmental stage too. I am sure you are glad you were not aborted when you were a fetus, so you cannot make an impartial decision, making you a hypocrite if you agree to abortion.

Saying abortion is okay is like saying �its okay to kill 4 year olds because there are not �really� people now. I mean, I have rights to not be bothered by caring for some �human larva� that is not really human. I mean, really, they cant even do calculus yet!�. The whole, �a fetus and embryo is not a human� argument is ignorant, because last time I checked, animals are classified by their DNA, something that a single celled embryo has.

I have no problems with getting research from cells that people CHOOSE to give, because they choose to give them. However, fetal and embryonic stem cell research is the same as following example.

Your sleeping in you bed, I come over to you and bash your head open, killing you. Then drill bone marrow out from your body, and then just throw you in the dumpster. NOW, you didn�t say NO, so I guess its okay. I mean after all, you couldn�t be alive, because you weren�t talking to me or anything. Granted, you had measurable brain waves (something that fetuses have), you were breathing (something that fetuses do), you were moving (also something a fetus does), and if you woke up, while I was bashing you on the head, you would also feel pain (something a fetus also does). But, I guess if you think if a fetus is not alive, for reason that I have yet to hear a responsible argument why, I guess I can do the same to other people too.

If you really thinking sacrificing people is moral, JUST BECAUSE, it saves the lives and welfare of there people, well then just say that. But the whole embryo and fetus is not a person thingy is invalid, and has been. Even NARAL admits that an embryo and fetus is a human being, just that they do not deserve rights because they are inside of the mother (which, surprise, is also easily debunked).

I mean think about it, how can �human stem cells� come from anything but �humans�?

Think about it. We got these human stem cells, which are made from human DNA, but oh-no, it is not human, its something different! Now, these human stem-cells, which mind you are not human, will create human organs.

So, yes a human embryo is a human, just get over that.

Now, I have a grandfather who is now has a screwed up brain after a stroke, but that does not mean killing other people to save his life is the right thing to do. Newsflash buddy, people get old and die. When people get old, their body stops working right. Sometimes, this happens earlier for some then others. Personally, I like the idea of preserving civil rights, instead of preserving my quality of life.

Now other countries will be immoral, and choose to go through with this act, but hey, other countries have slavery too. Should we also have slavery in the US?

X being beneficial, is not a good argument on why X should be done. If that were the case, America would be a lot better if we killed all the homeless people, or used then for scientific experiment. But, chances are you are against that, because you can see those people are �people�.

Thinking an embryo is not a human, is the same thing as saying one atom of iron is not iron, because there is not enough atoms to let you see, that it is, iron.

But, I guess, you only believe in civil liberties, some of the time, for some of the people. If sacrificing people makes life better for you, and people you love, that may be good for you, but not for me buddy.

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
You want to know what the bottom-line, practical reality of this issue is?

As soon as the first cure is found from stem cell research, all this moaning and ethical high-mindedness and political back-fighting is going to fall faster than Enron stock. No politician is going to want to be seen standing in the way of a cure for people suffering. There is no way they'll survive in the political arena.

If need be, we'll see all sorts traveling to Great Britain, or South Korea, or China to obtain cures in countries where there's less restrictions on stem cell research. But that won't last long as the pressure on the US politicians would be too big to ignore. Look what's happening with prescription drugs and allowing seniors to travel to Canada to obtain them.

As there will be no one, including people like our own Mr. Bob and Dr.Herman here, who will turn down a stem cell therapy if they are suffering from diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's, or a spinal cord injury that could be cured. Or if they have to support a mother, father, sister, brother, or spouse that could be helped.

Can you imagine a father who would deny their child a therapy that would cure them of diabetes or allow them to walk again after a spinal cord injury? Would you deny your child a cure all for the sake of a few cells in a petri dish? Absolutely no way.

Ok, honest, and I mean honest answer.

If your son is dying because of a bad heart, and the only to save his life is to get another heart. BUT, you know, that the heart your son is going to get, is only because some little kid, in some **** part of the world, gets killed against his will, and his heart is removed and given to your son. Would you agree?

I mean, in one hand, you have your son, who you love. In the other, some kid, in the ass end of the world, who I bet you don�t give a goddamn about. Which one is more important? Now, which one is more important to you?

Chances are, you love your son more then the kid in the armpit of the world. And, chances are, if it was legal, you would choose to get your kid the new heart, right?

That is how people are. No surprise there. But if that is so, then we flush our whole idea of �civil liberties�� down the goddamn toilet. If you choose to get the heart, you disregard everything that our country stands for. But, if you choose to let your son die, then you disregard everything that being a father stands for.

So, what is it going to be?

Civil Liberties?

Or caring for those we love.

You can have both though. Put a bullet in your head, and give your heart to your son. Then, you would NOT be a hypocrite. But, again, in today�s America, that is not the easiest and most selfish decision.

How do we fix this? By adult stem cell research. Because once we give away our humanity to stay alive, then we are the ones who are no longer human. But, getting adult stem cells, means drilling into human bones, which is just too uncomfortable. New cures has been made with adult stem cell research. That is what we should be working on. But it is far easier, for people to �believe� that embryos and fetuses are not human, because brainwashing yourself in this fashion makes your life easier. Hint, people once believed that blacks were not human, because brainwashing themselves in this fashion made their lives easier.

How about you put yourself though sacrifice for what you believe, instead of sacrificing others.

Because, I mean, children in the ass end of the world, they are not really human, right?!?

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yes. That realization was Step 1.

Now for Step 2.

You are *this* --><-- close to actually getting the point I was making.

-s*

LOL! Wicked!!

[khufuu]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
They really have very little to do we eachother. NARAL believe that both need to be supported and stem cell research needs to be advanced.

The people at NARAL are obviously quite stupid if they actually think that their public support of this would actually further either of their causes.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
Saying a fetus or embryo is not a person is the same thing as saying an infant is not either. That is the problem. If you think a person is determined by their developmental stage, then you are being hypocritical, because you were once in that developmental stage too. I am sure you are glad you were not aborted when you were a fetus, so you cannot make an impartial decision, making you a hypocrite if you agree to abortion.

Same argument has been used against organ donation. The cells don't die all at once. Just because brain activity ceases, doesn't mean the body is dead.

(once the cells die, the organ is no good to transplant).

In both cases the brain doesn't exist/doesn't function.

[Spheric Harlot]

Kudos to Mr. Bob for making his moral position clear without any attacks - except for the "brain-washing" bit, since that *does* come down to a matter of belief/opinion.

Yours is a stance I can very respectfully disagree with.

[Spliffdaddy]

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Same argument has been used against organ donation. The cells don't die all at once. Just because brain activity ceases, doesn't mean the body is dead.

(once the cells die, the organ is no good to transplant).

In both cases the brain doesn't exist/doesn't function.

???

Umm, the same argument has not been used for organ donation. Last time I checked, hearts, lungs, kidneys, etc... Do not feel their own pain, do not have their own brain waves, etc...

You show me a hart, which also has a brain, and then you can say this.

Keep in mind, that a heart is made of DNA that is exactly the same as the donors. However, a fetus or embryo's DNA is different then the mothers. It�s a proven fact, that an embryo or fetus is not an organ. You, can, call him or her a parasite, because he or she has a symbiotic relationship with the mother. Just remember, foreign life forms are just that, foreign life forms.

Unless you also think a tapeworm is, just another organ.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
???
Umm, the same argument has not been used for organ donation. Last time I checked, hearts, lungs, kidneys, etc... Do not feel their own pain, do not have their own brain waves, etc...

An embreo does not have a functioning brain either. It's not until the 6th weak that a brainwave is possible. At that point it's a fetus, not an embreo.

You show me a hart, which also has a brain, and then you can say this.

Show the medical world an embreo that does.

Keep in mind, that a heart is made of DNA that is exactly the same as the donors. However, a fetus or embryo's DNA is different then the mothers. It�s a proven fact, that an embryo or fetus is not an organ. You, can, call him or her a parasite, because he or she has a symbiotic relationship with the mother. Just remember, foreign life forms are just that, foreign life forms.

Unless you also think a tapeworm is, just another organ.

It's got no braincells as an embryo. Embryo != Fetus.

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
An embreo does not have a functioning brain either. It's not until the 6th weak that a brainwave is possible. At that point it's a fetus, not an embreo.


Show the medical world an embreo that does.


It's got no braincells as an embryo. Embryo != Fetus.

Although, a embryo is not a fetus, he or she is still not an internal organ. The reason is becuase an embryo has a diffrent DNA structure then the mother.

An embryo, is just a younger fetus, which is just a younger infant, and so on. The same rules should apply.

An organ belongs to the doner at the most basic DNA level. An embryo does not. He or she is just hitching a ride.

Saying an embryo is an organ, is like saying when you get a virus, that virus is also another organ. Medical terminology says no to this idea. Not everything that is in your body is an organ. if that was the case, then the hamburger I ate, would also be an internal organ.

[ebuddy]

I presently agree with the current U.S. administration's stance on stem cell research as I understand it. The go ahead has been given on stem cells currently in storage. Use them, as the decision on life has already been made. If this research begets more results, let's look at it again. For now, many who believe life is Sacred and that it begins at conception view the above as milling babies to save adults. To them, it seems wrong. I believe they have an argument valid of consideration. They should not be cast off as religious zealots, dogmatic, stupid, oppressive, or otherwise.

If we allowed religious conservatives to control scientific research the Sun would still be be circling the Earth.

It's statements like these that require attention although, to be fair you did mention Religious conservatives and not true Bible believers. The religious conservatives of the time, (i.e. Roman Catholic Pope Paul V and associated theologians) called Galileo a heretic for suggesting the Earth is not the center of the Universe and mandated he recant his findings. Remember, this was in essence-a governing faction of the time and Galileo was found to be dangerous politically. This is consistent with how man continues to exploit God for financial or political favore today. I'd like to clarify that nowhere in the Bible does it suggest the Earth is at the center, with all orbiting it. Had people really read the Bible and had science been less involved in ignoring It's words and more involved in using It as a foundation of understanding; they would've known the Earth is round, they would've known that blood is precious, they would've known about aquifers, atmospheric circulation, the hydrologic cycle, biogenesis, and gravity.