Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Paraplegic woman regains movement and feeling after stem cell transplant.

Paraplegic woman regains movement and feeling after stem cell transplant. (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 09:21 AM
 
The usual suspects, the usual justifications.
     
screamingFit
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ferndale, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Warung
No human being or feotus is killed for science.



Except, of course, life forms "lower" than humans.

Don't you just find it ironic that panties get all bunched up when "babies" are killed but the same people don't mind and actually encourage the torture and killing of cognotive, emotional beings?
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
Wow way to make my point for me! Everyone always complains about the fact that they're not allowed to murder unborn people for their research. Well turns out you can get great results without having to rob anyone of the chance of life!
If the "kid" is dead anyway, why not use the opportunity to LEARN something?!

To all intents and purposes, if you consider the fetus a "human," then it becomes a cadaver. Where are all the majority of Bible thumpers complaining about using human bodies to research anatomy and teach in colleges and universities around the world? They stopped 150 years ago when people realized what they were opposing was just stupid. It's just a body. If it had a soul, it's gone to your Heaven or Hell or Purgatory, or whatever you conveniently make up. What's left is a corpse. Use it, learn from it; then use that knowledge to help people who are ALIVE!

"Scientists" aren't murdering people. They aren't even involved the friggin' process! They're on the sidelines, seeing opportunities out of a sh*tty time for everyone involved with an abortion; to learn a few things that can help everyone.

Nothing is going to stop women from having abortions. You can pass all the dumbass laws you want, women will find other ways (usually very unsafe ways that is dangerous to her as well!) If she is not prepared to have a child, or if it's unsafe, or if circumstance presents a situation where it's unaccpetable to have a child, she'll have an abortion. That's how it's been for thousands of years, and that's how it'll continue to be.

It's inevitable, however unfortunate or disgusting people may think it is. But if it's going to happen regardless, learn from it and help people. Spouting that rhetorical crap about murdering children does absolutely NOTHING.

(Thanks for hijaking my thread.)
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warung
If a person kills a pregnant woman without knowing that she is carrying a feutus/baby, then it is not murder.
Er of course not. I didn't claim otherwise. I just claimed if said attempt was made on the child on purpose.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
So wait... being in a woman's vagina makes you not a person?
So wait... You're saying a woman can't decide what lives in her own body?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by screamingFit
Don't you just find it ironic that panties get all bunched up when "babies" are killed but the same people don't mind and actually encourage the torture and killing of cognotive, emotional beings?
The babies are already dead.

They don't kill the babies for experiments. They use already dead babies.

I mean what, do they think there is some big baby farm where they have mothers just pumping out babies all day which they promptly kill? They don't kill babies. The only reason why Stem Cell research does not happen in the US is because it was explicitly banned, not because they were doing anything illegal.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
So wait... You're saying a woman can't decide what lives in her own body?
If you are inside a woman, and she decides she doesn't want you there, can she just shoot you in the head?

Silly argument I know. But hey, we can all spin it to look like it's something other than what it is.

I've even seen people go so far as call unborn babies parasites.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
If you are inside a woman, and she decides she doesn't want you there, can she just shoot you in the head?
Well it is her body. A baby is not a cancer, but both are living things. Do we regulate the removal of cancer?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Hugi
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Probably some pub in Reykjavik
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
Stem cells are obviously evil
Indeed. I heard Hitler, Stalin and Celine Dion all started out as stem cells.
     
PBG4 User
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deer Crossing, CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Ahhh, but they want me to. They want federal funding for ESC research and that would force me to pay for something I find revolting. Would you want to pay for the salary of a evangelical pastor's salary?
Do you have a problem with your tax dollars paying for programs that come up with napalm, VX or other nerve agents? There are many programs paid for with US dollars, have you picked through the federal budget line by line and determined there is nothing being funded with your tax dollars which you oppose?
20" iMac G5! :D AND MacBook 1.83GHz!
Canon Digital Rebel Kit + 75 - 300mm lens. Yum Yum! :D
Check out my OS X Musical Scales program
     
Scifience
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 02:55 PM
 
My 2¢ on the issue of embryos being life:

I'm an atheist. I think that destroying an embryo is killing a life form. So is killing that cow you ate part of for dinner, so is swatting the fly buzzing around your head that you find annoying, so is cutting down a tree to make the paper you write on, so is your white blood cells killing invading bacteria, so is eating the lettuce in your salad, etc, etc, etc.

We, and other animals, kill things every day, for many different reasons. We kill other animals and plants for food, we kill bacteria to keep us healthy, we kill for self-defense - we kill for any number of reasons.

Why is killing a life form for research purposes (in this case, a human embryo) any worse than killing a fly? Killing a bacteria? Eating a steak and salad for dinner? Unlike the fly example, at least this serves some legitimate purpose (other than merely eliminating something that is annoying you) - it could save many human lives. It has a real purpose, just as eating a steak and salad for dinner does. It isn't pointless, like weed killer on your lawn. It helps the species survive, just like eating. That is, after all, our main goal in life - to survive as long as possible.
     
isao bered
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
If the "kid" is dead anyway, why not use the opportunity to LEARN something?!

<snip>

Nothing is going to stop women from having abortions. You can pass all the dumbass laws you want, women will find other ways (usually very unsafe ways that is dangerous to her as well!) If she is not prepared to have a child, or if it's unsafe, or if circumstance presents a situation where it's unaccpetable to have a child, she'll have an abortion. That's how it's been for thousands of years, and that's how it'll continue to be.

It's inevitable, however unfortunate or disgusting people may think it is. But if it's going to happen regardless, learn from it and help people. Spouting that rhetorical crap about murdering children does absolutely NOTHING.
the "let's make something good out of it" argument just doesn't work for me. in this case it serves only as a way to beautify the end and deflect from the means. for many people the culture of abortion on demand is reprehensible because they believe in some sanctity of life and don't think it should be so easily dismissable. to many of them the first violation is the removal of the reference term "(unborn) child". the second violation is the termination of the pregnancy (vice the willful killing of a child). it's only further violation to insinuate that the fetus would have no value as a child but does have value as research fuel.

the "they're just going to do it anyway" argument doesn't work for me either. i don't think the vast majority of women would have ever had abortions had it not been for legalization and a generation-long rationalization campaign. it wouldn't have become a "fail safe" for irresponsible behavior (and the rape scenario doesn't apply to willful poor judgement).

from a societal standpoint: some women used to kill their unborn children. a generation later they had an abortion (or terminated their pregnancy). a generation from now they just make a contribution to research science? so an historically reprehensible act can in less than fifty years time can become a near meaningless procedure.

yeah. sometimes this world moves too fast for me - and i'm oft uncertain of the direction.

be well.

laeth
     
sminch
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 04:07 PM
 
the "let's make something good out of it" argument just doesn't work for me. in this case it serves only as a way to beautify the end and deflect from the means. for many people the culture of abortion on demand is reprehensible because they believe in some sanctity of life and don't think it should be so easily dismissable. to many of them the first violation is the removal of the reference term "(unborn) child". the second violation is the termination of the pregnancy (vice the willful killing of a child). it's only further violation to insinuate that the fetus would have no value as a child but does have value as research fuel.
surely this is exactly the same as saying that we shouldn't perform transplants using organs from people who die in car crashes because that beautifies the way they died?

insinuating that the fetus would have no value as a child but does have value as research fuel? do you honestly think that a woman sits there considering whether or not to have an abortion and thinks "you know, if i do get it done then the fetus can be used in research! woot!"

sminch
     
isao bered
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by sminch
surely this is exactly the same as saying that we shouldn't perform transplants using organs from people who die in car crashes because that beautifies the way they died?

insinuating that the fetus would have no value as a child but does have value as research fuel? do you honestly think that a woman sits there considering whether or not to have an abortion and thinks "you know, if i do get it done then the fetus can be used in research! woot!"

sminch
accidental deaths are far different than premeditated ones. it is far from "exactly the same". the only similarity is that the result is death.

i didn't say any particular woman did say or would say that. only that i believe that is the next step in the social conditioning concerning abortions. and it would not surprise me down the road to hear something along the lines of "i couldn't give him a good life but maybe he can contribute to a better future after all".

be well.

laeth
     
simonjames
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bondi Beach
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 05:27 PM
 
And the prize for the best topic derailing of the month for September 2005 goes to Salty.

a big award to you
this sig intentionally left blank
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Well it is her body. A baby is not a cancer, but both are living things. Do we regulate the removal of cancer?
If two twins are joined at the hip, can one kill off the other out of convenience?
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by isao bered
<snip>
the "they're just going to do it anyway" argument doesn't work for me either. i don't think the vast majority of women would have ever had abortions had it not been for legalization and a generation-long rationalization campaign. it wouldn't have become a "fail safe" for irresponsible behavior (and the rape scenario doesn't apply to willful poor judgement).

from a societal standpoint: some women used to kill their unborn children. a generation later they had an abortion (or terminated their pregnancy). a generation from now they just make a contribution to research science? so an historically reprehensible act can in less than fifty years time can become a near meaningless procedure.

yeah. sometimes this world moves too fast for me - and i'm oft uncertain of the direction.

be well.

laeth
I didn't say stop promoting safe sex, planned parenthood, and preaching from your Bible. I just said that it's inevitable. Women will have abortions. Legal or not. What I am saying is that when a woman has an abortion, we can learn from it. Help people. Develop medicines that can hopefully, in the future, prevent unwanted pregnancies or develop new procedures to give fertility back to a woman.

I'm not rationalizing abortion or saying that it's OK. Or telling people to forget about it or the moral implicaitions associated with abortions. But when the inevitable happens, we can learn from it.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by greenamp
They used stem cells from an umbilical cord. The Chris Reeves act deals with embryonic stem cell research, hence the drama.
Completely WRONG. The Christopher Reeves Act DOES NOT DEAL WITH EMBRYONIC RESEARCH AT ALL. It was to fund and support basic research ABOUT PARALYSIS. Read it all here.

The whole problem is that Congress is so wrapped around the axle about stem cell research that they cannot see ANYTHING about ANY research that could benefit from ANY stem cell information without figuring it's about embryonic stem cells. DO NOT help them be confused about this.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
isao bered
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
I'm not rationalizing abortion or saying that it's OK. Or telling people to forget about it or the moral implicaitions associated with abortions. But when the inevitable happens, we can learn from it.
no problem. we just disagree on how this whole situation (abortion on demand) should educate us. there are lessons i think we *should have* already learned.

as for the *bible preaching*... that's really not my area. though, obviously i don't have a problem responding to others' with direct/indirect bible referencing. for example, i could say about the whole abortion mess "^^societies^^ want their kings and they get their sauls". but i don't know that would be an appropriate thing to say, so i probably wouldn't. ;-)

be well.

laeth

^^edit to correct possessive/plural^^
     
sminch
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 06:30 PM
 
accidental deaths are far different than premeditated ones. it is far from "exactly the same". the only similarity is that the result is death.
absolutely - no argument from me there. the thing is that they'd both already dead. neither were killed so that their parts can be provided for another's use, this happened post death with this post-death use having zero effect on the reason for the death.

and it would not surprise me down the road to hear something along the lines of "i couldn't give him a good life but maybe he can contribute to a better future after all"
interesting idea, and one that i can almost see happening (aside from the fact that stem calls can be grown in a lab, can't they?). that said, is this such a bad thing? i guess it comes down to whether the abortion was justified by the end use in research, or if this was a post-decision beneficial use for something that was otherwise going to be destroyed.

sminch
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warung
Except, of course, life forms "lower" than humans.
You know what's really pathetic? You roll your eyes at the mention of animals that are not as important as humans. As if there's some pride in that, but you set yourself as more valuable than someone who still has their life ahead of them, which you see no problem with cutting them off.

As for women who drink when they're pregnant? I find that revolting too! I have several kids in our youth group that are FAS kids, and I feel awful for them! The fact that they have these problems that in some cases make it impossible for them to realize even simply how annoying they're being when they're trying to goof around like normal kids. And to be honest when I meet mothers who have done this sort of thing, I have trouble not chewing them out, even though by now they've realize how reprehensible their actions were.

I consider abortion to be on the same level as a father molesting his own child. The only difference is that one child never gets to know that their parent decided they were worthless.
     
FulcrumPilot
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vladivostok.ru
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 07:34 PM
 
_,.
a solitary firefly flies at nite
into the darkness an endless flight
a million flashes of delight.
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 07:36 PM
 
As well, it's one thing if they used stem cells from a child that was naturally aborted, in the same way as if I naturally die my organs could go to someone else. However what Christians are opposed to is the use of stem cells that are obtained through unnatural and unethical situations. And you choose that your organs go or don't go. Soon as the child can sign off on their stem cells going, or soon as you ask them and they say yes, then I'll have no problem.
Otherwise you're just another Hitler.
     
FulcrumPilot
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vladivostok.ru
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
Otherwise you're just another Hitler.
Jawohl!
_,.
a solitary firefly flies at nite
into the darkness an endless flight
a million flashes of delight.
     
Laurence
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 07:42 PM
 
I wouldn't really care about the ethical considerations if I was in such a state. A would not have a problem breeding fetuses (feti?) solely for spare parts. If you are not the one dealing with the problem you really can't say what is justified in that situation. If I was in such a terrible state and knew that it could be improved by "unethical" research, I would be on a plane for China, Cuba, etc to get the job done. Murder is only unethical when it is a sentient being that is being killed. Unless someone can show that a three month old fetus is sentient then its no different than a fly, tree, mouse, and these are killed every day by the thousands. It only matters when you take something from someone IF they are aware that they have it to begin with.
--Laurence
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laurence
I wouldn't really care about the ethical considerations if I was in such a state. A would not have a problem breeding fetuses (feti?) solely for spare parts. If you are not the one dealing with the problem you really can't say what is justified in that situation. If I was in such a terrible state and knew that it could be improved by "unethical" research, I would be on a plane for China, Cuba, etc to get the job done. Murder is only unethical when it is a sentient being that is being killed. Unless someone can show that a three month old fetus is sentient then its no different than a fly, tree, mouse, and these are killed every day by the thousands. It only matters when you take something from someone IF they are aware that they have it to begin with.
Every night, I stop being self aware when I sleep. Every night you do the same, are you OK with me walking up and gutting you because you're inconvenient, even when I know you will again be self aware in a few hours, or even if I make enough noise. Eventually that child too will become self aware. You are committing a crime against a soul and a person who would be.

And anyone who is so selfish and arrogant as the decide that so long as it benifits them and makes their pain stop they should rob someone else of joy, happiness or even life. Is disgusting. Realizing that you need to think outside of yourself is widely recognized as a basic part of growing up. I'm too bad you're equally as enlightened as a 8 year old.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
If two twins are joined at the hip, can one kill off the other out of convenience?
Well you can separate them...

A mother doesn't go "Gee... I want to kill my baby". A mother goes "I don't want to have a baby inside me". So the mother has the baby removed from inside her, and then it dies.

Not saying it's wonderful, I'm saying it's just a woman deciding what's inside her body. If there was a way to remove a baby from a woman who did not want it in her and keep it alive by artificial means, that would be great. But there isn't.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
As well, it's one thing if they used stem cells from a child that was naturally aborted, in the same way as if I naturally die my organs could go to someone else. However what Christians are opposed to is the use of stem cells that are obtained through unnatural and unethical situations. And you choose that your organs go or don't go. Soon as the child can sign off on their stem cells going, or soon as you ask them and they say yes, then I'll have no problem.
Otherwise you're just another Hitler.
Huh? Stem cells are stem cells. Why take a tragedy and make nothing good come of it?

If a baby dies something good should come of it. Stem cell research doesn't encourage abortion like you seem to be implying. It's not like a mother goes "I'm going to have an abortion for the sake of stem cell research."
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Well you can separate them...

A mother doesn't go "Gee... I want to kill my baby". A mother goes "I don't want to have a baby inside me". So the mother has the baby removed from inside her, and then it dies.

Not saying it's wonderful, I'm saying it's just a woman deciding what's inside her body. If there was a way to remove a baby from a woman who did not want it in her and keep it alive by artificial means, that would be great. But there isn't.
Abortion really shouldn't be used as birth control.

I am not one of those "No abortions ever!!11" people.

But using it as birth control, there is no really good argument for that.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Abortion really shouldn't be used as birth control.

I am not one of those "No abortions ever!!11" people.

But using it as birth control, there is no really good argument for that.
Again, you're dictating how much control a woman has over her body. If a woman does not want to continue with a pregnancy, that is her choice.

Look at it this way, whether or not it is legal a woman is going to abort the baby one way or another. As a Christian, don't you support her going to a safe environment where it can be done at least without bringing harm to herself?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
As well, it's one thing if they used stem cells from a child that was naturally aborted, in the same way as if I naturally die my organs could go to someone else. However what Christians are opposed to is the use of stem cells that are obtained through unnatural and unethical situations. And you choose that your organs go or don't go. Soon as the child can sign off on their stem cells going, or soon as you ask them and they say yes, then I'll have no problem.
Otherwise you're just another Hitler.
Your posts are great; got me through the thread.

So what "unnatural and unethical" situations are you against as far as stem cell research goes? Please tell me: do you even know where the active stem cell lines originated?
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
sminch
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 09:01 PM
 
However what Christians are opposed to is the use of stem cells that are obtained through unnatural and unethical situations.
please stop equating your version of christianity with "Christianity" - i know a lot of christians who would say you're wrong about this and many other things you write on this board. though i guess you'd just say that if htey don't agree with you then they're not real christians...

anyway, this is just you forcing your ethics on others. i knew a guy once who thought it was unethical for races to intermarry - should he be allowed to force that one others? if i remember correctly he een had a biblical passage to back it up, so surely he's in with bells on! if he isn't able to do so, then why should you?

Eventually that child too will become self aware.
yes. and once they are they they gain the same rights as you and i. what was your point?

You are committing a crime against a soul and a person who would be.
ah, there it goes. does this mean you subscribe to the "every sperm is sacred" school of thought? just curious.

And anyone who is so selfish and arrogant as the decide that so long as it benifits them and makes their pain stop they should rob someone else of joy, happiness or even life. Is disgusting. Realizing that you need to think outside of yourself is widely recognized as a basic part of growing up. I'm too bad you're equally as enlightened as a 8 year old.
sort of like how you're "thinking outside of yourself" when your showing so much empathy towards women who really, really, really think that an abortion would be a bloody good idea? lucky you're not "so selfish and arrogant" when you decide which decisions they should be allowed to make about their own bodies, right?

sminch
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
Every night, I stop being self aware when I sleep. Every night you do the same, are you OK with me walking up and gutting you because you're inconvenient, even when I know you will again be self aware in a few hours, or even if I make enough noise. Eventually that child too will become self aware.
That's a good comparison. Every night do you also stop being 100ish trillion differentiated cells—first conceived many years ago during sexual intercourse—and instead become a small clump of 10ish undifferentiated cells that was fertilized just active days ago in a petri dish?
You are committing a crime against a soul and a person who would be.
Last time I checked, souls and imaginary people don't have rights in the court of law. If you're willing to concede the fertilized deaths of cells that didn't implant on the wall of the uterus—cells that weren't going to grow to be fully-developed people—then what do you have against the utilization of excess zygotes from fertility clinics? The latter aren't going to be people, either.

Explain to us: how exactly do you think stem cells are acquired?

And anyone who is so selfish and arrogant as the decide that so long as it benifits them and makes their pain stop they should rob someone else of joy, happiness or even life. Is disgusting. Realizing that you need to think outside of yourself is widely recognized as a basic part of growing up. I'm too bad you're equally as enlightened as a 8 year old.
The only people being robbed of life are the sick and dying who would benefit from embryonic stem cell research.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 09:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
As well, it's one thing if they used stem cells from a child that was naturally aborted, in the same way as if I naturally die my organs could go to someone else. However what Christians are opposed to is the use of stem cells that are obtained through unnatural and unethical situations. And you choose that your organs go or don't go. Soon as the child can sign off on their stem cells going, or soon as you ask them and they say yes, then I'll have no problem.
Otherwise you're just another Hitler.
Spontaneous abortion almost always occurs because there's something wrong with the fetus. That means that cells from such a fetus would probably be flawed in some way. Not a good idea.

However, until somebody got the idea that disposing of a no longer viable embryo (and technically, a fertilized egg that has not implanted in a uterine wall is NOT an embryo-it's a zygote) is the same as terminating an established pregnancy, the issue was not at all about abortion. It was about "what do the parents of this fertilized egg want to do with it?"

And I do not think that there would be any sort of underground industry involving inducing women to donate eggs for the illicit production of embryonic stem cells; the procedure is quite involved, takes WEEKS to prepare the woman for (the drugs used to stimulate multiple ovulations are not fun for the woman to take, either), and the harvesting of the eggs is uncomfortable to say the least.

To me it comes down to an issue of who gets involved in the reproductive decisions of the two people involved. I don't think that anyone but the two parents and their physician should be involved, not anyone on this board, not anyone in Congress, not the President, not the Pope, NOBODY except the two involved and their physician.

In my experience, Salty, there are a ton of people who call themselves "Christians," but who have little intention to follow Christ's teachings. Neither do they interest themselves with ethics when it comes to "when life begins." Instead they take a hardline stance that they cannot back up with either science or Scripture, and they encourage violence and dictatorial restrictions on people who they really do not even want to meet, let alone care about. Not all Christians-certainly not. But the rabid, vocal group that tries to make scared girls faint in front of clinics, that encourages loonies to shoot doctors, and that tries to force governments to enact laws that STRICTLY CONTROL PEOPLE ACCORDING TO A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS STANCE (which is, of course, a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution). If you give these people any power at all, the structure of our nation will crumble under the inherent contradiction between the First Amendment prohibition against state sponsorship of ANY religion and the entirely religious purpose and aim of any such laws.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Spontaneous abortion almost always occurs because there's something wrong with the fetus. That means that cells from such a fetus would probably be flawed in some way. Not a good idea.

However, until somebody got the idea that disposing of a no longer viable embryo (and technically, a fertilized egg that has not implanted in a uterine wall is NOT an embryo-it's a zygote) is the same as terminating an established pregnancy, the issue was not at all about abortion. It was about "what do the parents of this fertilized egg want to do with it?"

And I do not think that there would be any sort of underground industry involving inducing women to donate eggs for the illicit production of embryonic stem cells; the procedure is quite involved, takes WEEKS to prepare the woman for (the drugs used to stimulate multiple ovulations are not fun for the woman to take, either), and the harvesting of the eggs is uncomfortable to say the least.

To me it comes down to an issue of who gets involved in the reproductive decisions of the two people involved. I don't think that anyone but the two parents and their physician should be involved, not anyone on this board, not anyone in Congress, not the President, not the Pope, NOBODY except the two involved and their physician.

In my experience, Salty, there are a ton of people who call themselves "Christians," but who have little intention to follow Christ's teachings. Neither do they interest themselves with ethics when it comes to "when life begins." Instead they take a hardline stance that they cannot back up with either science or Scripture, and they encourage violence and dictatorial restrictions on people who they really do not even want to meet, let alone care about. Not all Christians-certainly not. But the rabid, vocal group that tries to make scared girls faint in front of clinics, that encourages loonies to shoot doctors, and that tries to force governments to enact laws that STRICTLY CONTROL PEOPLE ACCORDING TO A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS STANCE (which is, of course, a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution). If you give these people any power at all, the structure of our nation will crumble under the inherent contradiction between the First Amendment prohibition against state sponsorship of ANY religion and the entirely religious purpose and aim of any such laws.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Again, you're dictating how much control a woman has over her body. If a woman does not want to continue with a pregnancy, that is her choice.
No, I am not talking about HER body at all.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
No, I am not talking about HER body at all.
Huh? The baby is inside a woman's body. It's her body. She's the one calling the shots. If she doesn't want a baby inside it, she has the right to have the baby removed.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Huh? The baby is inside a woman's body. It's her body.
No, ANOTHER person's body is inside her body. She isn't killing off anything of HERS. But SOMEONE ELSE'S body.

That "HER BODY" BS doesn't cut it here.
She's the one calling the shots. If she doesn't want a baby inside it, she has the right to have the baby removed.
I am not arguing if she does or does not.

I am saying the justification of calling it something other than what it is.

Like saying it's HER body. When there really isn't much about HER body that gets killed.
     
FulcrumPilot
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vladivostok.ru
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 11:10 PM
 
_,.
a solitary firefly flies at nite
into the darkness an endless flight
a million flashes of delight.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
No, ANOTHER person's body is inside her body. She isn't killing off anything of HERS. But SOMEONE ELSE'S body.
Why is abortion being discussed in this thread, anyhow? These lil' zygotes aren't in anyone's body.
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 12:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
No, ANOTHER person's body is inside her body. She isn't killing off anything of HERS. But SOMEONE ELSE'S body.

That "HER BODY" BS doesn't cut it here.

I am not arguing if she does or does not.

I am saying the justification of calling it something other than what it is.

Like saying it's HER body. When there really isn't much about HER body that gets killed.
So she doesn't want another person inside her. It's her right. It's her body.

The most fundamental thing that we control in the world is our own bodies. You want to strip that basic right away from women.

This has never been an argument about killing unborn babies. Yes, that's wrong. It's horrible. It's ugly. We get it. You can repeat it over and over and it won't matter. A human being can decide what is to be done with their own bodies. If they don't want a baby inside them they can decide that.

And whether you like it or not it's going to be done, with or without doctors. There are always coat hangers. A woman could potentially kill herself by trying to do an abortion herself. At least we can save one life by having places where this can be done instead of losing two lives.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 02:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by PBG4 User
Do you have a problem with your tax dollars paying for programs that come up with napalm, VX or other nerve agents? There are many programs paid for with US dollars, have you picked through the federal budget line by line and determined there is nothing being funded with your tax dollars which you oppose?
Yes I oppose these purchases as well.

However, more people are killed by abortions each year than the US has killed in most wars we have fought. Why not stop the biggest killer of people first and work your way down to the smaller stuff?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 02:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Huh? The baby is inside a woman's body. It's her body. She's the one calling the shots. If she doesn't want a baby inside it, she has the right to have the baby removed.
How about the rights of the child inside of her? It doesn't get any rights?

She had the choice to call the shots when she had unprotected sex. People need to learn personal responsibility.

We are also basically committing genocide on African-Americans as they by far have a dispraportionate amount of all abortions performed.
     
sminch
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 03:00 AM
 
We are also basically committing genocide on African-Americans as they by far have a dispraportionate amount of all abortions performed.
"we" are??? we being the collective people who are forcing african american mothers to have abortions? i think this thread just hit peak silliness.

sminch
     
Warung
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the streets have no names...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 03:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
You know what's really pathetic? You roll your eyes at the mention of animals that are not as important as humans. As if there's some pride in that, but you set yourself as more valuable than someone who still has their life ahead of them, which you see no problem with cutting them off.
What does one have to do with the other?

It's not a matter of importance, but a rational evaluation of the situation. What is really pathetic is that there are people (much like you) who tacitly condone the horror of factory farming, torture and (cruel) use for experimentation of other living beings, but get your panties in a bunch when people decide to remove a fetus the size of your brain from their body.

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
     
Warung
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the streets have no names...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 03:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
She had the choice to call the shots when she had unprotected sex. People need to learn personal responsibility.
And that's the bottom line, isn't it? You twits don't give a fu<k about the "unborn". All you care about is trying to "guilt" people into living the kind of life that you see appropriate.

Guess what? It's not working. And it never will.

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 03:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
So she doesn't want another person inside her. It's her right. It's her body.

The most fundamental thing that we control in the world is our own bodies. You want to strip that basic right away from women.

This has never been an argument about killing unborn babies. Yes, that's wrong. It's horrible. It's ugly. We get it. You can repeat it over and over and it won't matter. A human being can decide what is to be done with their own bodies. If they don't want a baby inside them they can decide that.

And whether you like it or not it's going to be done, with or without doctors. There are always coat hangers. A woman could potentially kill herself by trying to do an abortion herself. At least we can save one life by having places where this can be done instead of losing two lives.
Your reasoning is flawed. The woman CHOSE to get pregnant. She CHOSE to have sex, she CHOSE to allow a baby to take or residence. Less than 1% of all abortions are the result of rape. If you want to make an exception just for rape victims that's one thing. It's another thing to suggest that the woman was not willingly involved in the creation of this baby.

As for girls fainting in front of clinics? GOOD! Do you have any idea the psychological pain that comes into someone's life when it finally hits them that they took the life of another person? I wouldn't wish that pain on anyone and neither should you!
     
isao bered
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 03:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
Do you have any idea the psychological pain that comes into someone's life when it finally hits them that they took the life of another person?
hmmmmm... killed many people have we?

laeth
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 03:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
How about the rights of the child inside of her? It doesn't get any rights?

She had the choice to call the shots when she had unprotected sex. People need to learn personal responsibility.

We are also basically committing genocide on African-Americans as they by far have a dispraportionate amount of all abortions performed.
Huh? You act like abortion is a primary form of birth control. It's not. It's not exactly a comfortable procedure for the woman either.

Here's something you might not know: condoms break. Why do you think abortions are the result of unprotected sex? The couple could very well have had every intention of not getting pregnant.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 03:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
Your reasoning is flawed. The woman CHOSE to get pregnant. She CHOSE to have sex, she CHOSE to allow a baby to take or residence. Less than 1% of all abortions are the result of rape. If you want to make an exception just for rape victims that's one thing. It's another thing to suggest that the woman was not willingly involved in the creation of this baby.
No, again your beliefs are inaccurate. See my post above.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,