California Stem Cell Prop 71 Is Favored In The Polls

[ScreamingEagle]

But if that "embreo" will never develop beyond the zigot stage, and is doomed to destruction anyway, I see no moral issue with using it for the betterment of mankind. I do not believe that life becomes sacred until it becomes self-aware, and as I've stated before, I believe this occures when the cerebral cortex becomes active, which is probably not earlier than about the 5th week, maybe later (I'd have to do some research to pin down how many weeks into development this occurs).

Since there are quite a few such zigots available, I think this is an appropriate avenue for aquiring the stem cells, as long as they are created for fertility treatments and are legitimate extras.

Either the embryo is human or it isn't. Your rationalization is just another form of liberal relativism.

p.s. How's this for liberal rationalization: I think humans who can't spell technical terms the third time around are relatively unaware, inferior human beings with no possible potential and thus their illegible lives should be slated for the experimental factory.

 

[Zhukov]

Somewhat diverging from the direction this thread is going, but where in the world did California get $3 billion to invest in anything?

I thought they were running a massive deficit, not to mention the fact that perhaps that $3 billion would be better spent building power plants.

Also, if they want to spend money subsidizing stem cell research that is of course up to the people of the State of California, but $3 billion!? That seems really excessive.

 

[Zhukov]

And I don't usually correct people's spelling, but wade, it's "zygote".

 

[wade]

Either the embryo is human or it isn't. Your rationalization is just another form of liberal relativism.

p.s. How's this for liberal rationalization: I think humans who can't spell technical terms the third time around are relatively unaware, inferior human beings with no possible potential and thus their illegible lives should be slated for the experimental factory.

I made no judgement as to the zygot's being inferior, just that until the cerebral cortex becomes active and they can think "I am", I do not consider it the taking of a human life to destroy them. Huge difference. I still think it is wrong to destroy such life execpt in special circumstances - specifically when that life has no chance of ever growing and will be destroyed anyway.

Yeah, my spelling is not particularly great. Having been a programmer for many years, I've just given it up. So may things are intentionally misspelled in programming that it becomes hard to see errors. I have to double check my math too, too many years working in octal and hexadecimal. But, if you'd like to compare typing speed somehow, I'm game. I type very fast, unless you are exceptional, probably twice, maybe three times as fast as you. Trade-offs.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I made no judgement as to the zygot's being inferior, just that until the cerebral cortex becomes active and they can think "I am", I do not consider it the taking of a human life to destroy them. Huge difference. I still think it is wrong to destroy such life execpt in special circumstances - specifically when that life has no chance of ever growing and will be destroyed anyway.

Yeah, my spelling is not particularly great. Having been a programmer for many years, I've just given it up. So may things are intentionally misspelled in programming that it becomes hard to see errors. I have to double check my math too, too many years working in octal and hexadecimal. But, if you'd like to compare typing speed somehow, I'm game. I type very fast, unless you are exceptional, probably twice, maybe three times as fast as you. Trade-offs.

Yeah, I understand trade-offs. They are OK in some areas of life but not when life itself is at stake. You think it is OK to trade-off a human life for some heart tissue or whatever?

My real point was not not to critique your spelling, but to use it in an example of relativism. See if you can find any similarities between my rationalization and yours. I believe that you consider a zygote to be inferior to a born human being as you are willing to "use" it for science - and in some ways it is inferior to a more developed human - except in the elemental importance of being a live human being with a potential life to live.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Somewhat diverging from the direction this thread is going, but where in the world did California get $3 billion to invest in anything?

I thought they were running a massive deficit, not to mention the fact that perhaps that $3 billion would be better spent building power plants.

Also, if they want to spend money subsidizing stem cell research that is of course up to the people of the State of California, but $3 billion!? That seems really excessive.

Californian liberals are nut cases. They want to continue their extravagant spending even during a period of financial crisis within their state. But this issue has become another "AIDS" program and money is no object when pursuing a political objective! This is how liberals operate, the ends justify the means. The heck with heat and lights and electrical power. They are after another type of power which is much more important to them.

 

[wade]

Yeah, I understand trade-offs. They are OK in some areas of life but not when life itself is at stake. You think it is OK to trade-off a human life for some heart tissue or whatever?

My real point was not not to critique your spelling, but to use it in an example of relativism. See if you can find any similarities between my rationalization and yours. I believe that you consider a zygote to be inferior to a born human being as you are willing to "use" it for science - and in some ways it is inferior to a more developed human - except in the elemental importance of being a live human being with a potential life to live.

No I do not think it is inferior, I think it is otherwise wasted. Since these zygots are never going to be born, they can either be used for stem-cell research, or they can just die.

Let me diverge a moment and let you consider another of my beliefs. I think everyone should be an organ doner by default. If you do not wish to be a doner, you should have to fill out paper work declaring this - and if you do you should never be a candidate to recieve an organ. You should only be allowed to change your status to become an organ doner if you are in good enough health to donate - if you loose your health, you cannot then change your mind. Because the default assumption is that a person is willing to be a doner, this covers those who from birth or a young age cannot be. They start off being qualified to recieve, even if they are ill.

I believe the default assumption should be that people do want to donate. That given the choice between helping others with what is useless to them, and just letting it rot, most people would rather help others. In the case of the excess zygots that are available from fertility clinics, I believe they would rather benefit mankind than just die.

 

[Hobbit]

The point is that the things that are done that lead to the creation of stem cells are considered wrong by many of us, including me. Once they create a valuable, medical resource, it will futher legitamize their existance.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No I do not think it is inferior, I think it is otherwise wasted. Since these zygots are never going to be born, they can either be used for stem-cell research, or they can just die.

Let me diverge a moment and let you consider another of my beliefs. I think everyone should be an organ doner by default. If you do not wish to be a doner, you should have to fill out paper work declaring this - and if you do you should never be a candidate to recieve an organ. You should only be allowed to change your status to become an organ doner if you are in good enough health to donate - if you loose your health, you cannot then change your mind. Because the default assumption is that a person is willing to be a doner, this covers those who from birth or a young age cannot be. They start off being qualified to recieve, even if they are ill.

I believe the default assumption should be that people do want to donate. That given the choice between helping others with what is useless to them, and just letting it rot, most people would rather help others. In the case of the excess zygots that are available from fertility clinics, I believe they would rather benefit mankind than just die.

Once again, I am against the creation of the "extra" embryos (zygotes) to begin with. This is playing with human life. Also, just because they are "extras" does not mean that they should be used in experimentation. Did we not learn the lesson of the Holocaust? You can't just call some forms of human life inhuman. Human life is to be respected in all forms. If you are willing to cross that definitative line, what else are you willing to compromise on?

Regarding donation, what kind of world do you want to live in? Since you think everyone should be an organ donor by default, do you believe that your body is only a pawn of the State to be used as they see fit? Once again, you are putting a person - even if he is dead - into a secondary position, subservient to the State or what you would like to call "the greater good".

I believe that a human being should be respected in all stages of life and also in death. If a person wishes to donate their body, fine. That is their decision and if they wish to make conditions about who it goes to, that is their decision also. The State should not step in and make these kinds of decisions. What you are proposing is a State policy about people's bodies. I thought liberals supported the control of their own bodies?*

*Actually that was said with much sarcasm because I have never believed that liberals really want control of their own bodies - that's been a misleading lie to cover up the real purpose of controlling the lives of the unborn as well as the lives of the mothers and the families concerned.

 

[alien21010]

Once again, I am against the creation of the "extra" embryos (zygotes) to begin with. This is playing with human life. Also, just because they are "extras" does not mean that they should be used in experimentation. Did we not learn the lesson of the Holocaust? You can't just call some forms of human life inhuman. Human life is to be respected in all forms. If you are willing to cross that definitative line, what else are you willing to compromise on?

Well the problem is, a zygote is just not a form of human life. It has the potential to become a human, but is not in any way, shape, or form similar to a human. It neither possess any organs, nor possesses a self-conscious brain.

Besides, this is by in large irrelevent. The most promising stem cells are the ones that can be found within your own body. Stem cells from your own body have no risk of rejection and are more readily available should you need them.

Regarding donation, what kind of world do you want to live in? Since you think everyone should be an organ donor by default, do you believe that your body is only a pawn of the State to be used as they see fit? Once again, you are putting a person - even if he is dead - into a secondary position, subservient to the State or what you would like to call "the greater good".

Perhaps you misunderstand what it means to be an organ donor. The State does not just come and remove organs from you, while alive. (See: Life of Bryan by Monty Python). If you are dead, and your body contains elements which may well extend the life of someone else, why should those elements not be given to those in need?

I believe that a human being should be respected in all stages of life and also in death. If a person wishes to donate their body, fine. That is their decision and if they wish to make conditions about who it goes to, that is their decision also. The State should not step in and make these kinds of decisions. What you are proposing is a State policy about people's bodies. I thought liberals supported the control of their own bodies?*

*Actually that was said with much sarcasm because I have never believed that liberals really want control of their own bodies - that's been a misleading lie to cover up the real purpose of controlling the lives of the unborn as well as the lives of the mothers and the families concerned.

I fully agree with you that a person should be able to make decisions such as that. But - and here is where I fully disagree - when you have 60,000 people on a waiting list for a kidney (many of whom will die before they receive the kindey they need) and you have a perfectly fine set of kidneys... Why not donate? Why not give the gift of life to someone?

I don't know which liberals you are referring to. It would seem the right-wing extremists would be the ones who wish to deny you the right to choose what happens with your body (abortion) and your unborn child.

 

[Zhukov]

Well the problem is, a zygote is just not a form of human life.

Yes it is. It's the zygote form of human life.

It has the potential to become a human, but is not in any way, shape, or form similar to a human.

Except genetically of course.

 

[wade]

Once again, I am against the creation of the "extra" embryos (zygotes) to begin with. This is playing with human life. Also, just because they are "extras" does not mean that they should be used in experimentation. Did we not learn the lesson of the Holocaust? You can't just call some forms of human life inhuman. Human life is to be respected in all forms. If you are willing to cross that definitative line, what else are you willing to compromise on?

Regarding donation, what kind of world do you want to live in? Since you think everyone should be an organ donor by default, do you believe that your body is only a pawn of the State to be used as they see fit? Once again, you are putting a person - even if he is dead - into a secondary position, subservient to the State or what you would like to call "the greater good".

I believe that a human being should be respected in all stages of life and also in death. If a person wishes to donate their body, fine. That is their decision and if they wish to make conditions about who it goes to, that is their decision also. The State should not step in and make these kinds of decisions. What you are proposing is a State policy about people's bodies. I thought liberals supported the control of their own bodies?*

*Actually that was said with much sarcasm because I have never believed that liberals really want control of their own bodies - that's been a misleading lie to cover up the real purpose of controlling the lives of the unborn as well as the lives of the mothers and the families concerned.

I simply think that if you want to be a candiate to recieve an organ if you need one, you should have to be a doner before that point. The reason it should default to everyone being a doner is because some people are never able to donate - the assumption should be in their favor in this situation, so that they can recieve. Anyone could simply sign the paperwork saying "I do not wish to be an organ doner" and they would no longer be a doner but would also no longer be able to recieve. That's fair. The only real issue would be a child who's parents had signed for them not to be doners, who then became ill and needed an organ.

What is not right is that people who do not sign up to be a doner are given the same rights to available organs as those who do.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't know which liberals you are referring to. It would seem the right-wing extremists would be the ones who wish to deny you the right to choose what happens with your body (abortion) and your unborn child.

I am referring to the liberals that have the goal of a State-run world. Conservatives believe in the rights of the individual. Liberals do not. An unborn child is an individual human being so I support its individual rights. Liberals think it has no rights and so figure they can dismissively kill it. I also support the right of an individual to donate his/her own body to help others if they so choose. I do not support the State making that decision for anybody. btw is a pro-lifer your definition of a "right-wing extremist"?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I simply think that if you want to be a candiate to recieve an organ if you need one, you should have to be a doner before that point. The reason it should default to everyone being a doner is because some people are never able to donate - the assumption should be in their favor in this situation, so that they can recieve. Anyone could simply sign the paperwork saying "I do not wish to be an organ doner" and they would no longer be a doner but would also no longer be able to recieve. That's fair. The only real issue would be a child who's parents had signed for them not to be doners, who then became ill and needed an organ.

What is not right is that people who do not sign up to be a doner are given the same rights to available organs as those who do.

What about those who wish to just donate their organs to anybody who needs them on a first-come, first-serve basis? Are you telling me that the State would then deny some people who, for whatever reason, decided not to sign up their body for donations? People who, more than likely, would probably change their minds about that earlier decision? Also, by denying some people, aren't you disrespecting the wishes of the individuals making the donations?

 

[wade]

What about those who wish to just donate their organs to anybody who needs them on a first-come, first-serve basis? Are you telling me that the State would then deny some people who, for whatever reason, decided not to sign up their body for donations? People who, more than likely, would probably change their minds about that earlier decision? Also, by denying some people, aren't you disrespecting the wishes of the individuals making the donations?

Okay, let me change my stance a little. Rather than denying organ translpants to those who are not doners entirely, I think it would be more appropriate that they would be in a second tier. Doner's would always be moved ahead of non-doner's to recieve available organs. If no compatible doner is in need, then non-doner's would be elidgable to recieve the organ, as it should not go to waste.

 

[wade]

I am referring to the liberals that have the goal of a State-run world. Conservatives believe in the rights of the individual. Liberals do not. An unborn child is an individual human being so I support its individual rights. Liberals think it has no rights and so figure they can dismissively kill it. I also support the right of an individual to donate his/her own body to help others if they so choose. I do not support the State making that decision for anybody. btw is a pro-lifer your definition of a "right-wing extremist"?

Conservatives all believe they will someday be rich. Few of them ever will. They are allowing the destruction of the planet to satiate their greed and egos. Bush and his cronies are turning this country and this planet into one big sewer.

Conservatives will scream and cry about the unborn zygots being used for research even though they will never take a single breath, but are not bothered by the 28,000 children that die each day from malnourishment and disease.

Conservatives are outraged by the mere 3% of the national budget spent on welfare and the like, but have no problems with corporate welfare and subsidies that amount to several times that amount.

Conservatives live in a "it won't happen to me" world. When it happens to them, they are suddenly liberals.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Okay, let me change my stance a little. Rather than denying organ translpants to those who are not doners entirely, I think it would be more appropriate that they would be in a second tier. Doner's would always be moved ahead of non-doner's to recieve available organs. If no compatible doner is in need, then non-doner's would be elidgable to recieve the organ, as it should not go to waste.

You are still advocating that the State run things. Individuals and their personal wishes must not be important to you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Conservatives all believe they will someday be rich. Few of them ever will. .

And pratically none will even be moderately well-off under socialism/communism.

They are allowing the destruction of the planet to satiate their greed and egos. Bush and his cronies are turning this country and this planet into one big sewer..

Please substantiate your claim.

Conservatives will scream and cry about the unborn zygots being used for research even though they will never take a single breath, but are not bothered by the 28,000 children that die each day from malnourishment and disease..

Again, please provide facts.

Conservatives are outraged by the mere 3% of the national budget spent on welfare and the like, but have no problems with corporate welfare and subsidies that amount to several times that amount..

Not true. I don't care for excessive corporate welfare either.

Conservatives live in a "it won't happen to me" world. When it happens to them, they are suddenly liberals.

Such as?

 

[wade]

You are still advocating that the State run things. Individuals and their personal wishes must not be important to you.

Wrong. This is why individuals can opt out of the program. But if they do so they are on their own. If they wish to grant their organs on a first come first sever basis, without preference for other doners first, then they can do so - privately.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Wrong. This is why individuals can opt out of the program. But if they do so they are on their own. If they wish to grant their organs on a first come first sever basis, without preference for other doners first, then they can do so - privately.

Just as I advocate private health care, I would advocate private control of such matters. The State doesn't need to get its nose into it although they would probably find some way to tax it.