Stem-cell morality

[CharlestonChad]

I suppose you could say that. I wasn't aware that stem cell research was illegal.

But I don't oppose the funding aspect at all. Even though I think he made the right choice for reasons I disagree with, I'm glad he made the right choice.

I'm sick of seeing Americans' tax dollars fund every fucking thing under the sun. It's a complete waste of money.

It's not illegal, but cells gathered before '98 cannot be used.

 

[Powerman]

It's not illegal, but cells gathered before '98 cannot be used.

That seems rather silly...

I don't get it

Is there a shortage of stem cells due to this?

 

[katie_scarlett]

Hello to you as well.

I think you missed my point in what I was trying to say.
I get that some people view abortion as muder, thus your reply.
JMO but the murder/not murder issue is a moral one based on one's personal belief system. If the goverment banned abortions women who wanted that option would find a way to get one. Then we'd be back to unsafe procedures taking place. And I think abortion in the case of rape & risk to the mothers life should be allowed.
I don't think the goverment should have the right to say a woman shouldn't decide for herself about unplanned pregnancy.
Just because I wouldn't chose abortion as an option for myself I don't feel I have the right to judge another womans right to go that route.
It should be a personal decison, not something dictated by legal rulings.
Hope that explains it better.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

To anyone who disapproves of ESC research:



Are you a pacifist? If not, then do you view the droppings of the atom bomb on Japan as a way to actually save lives that would have normally been lost in standard warfare?

If you support the above, then you must also support ESC research because that is a way to potentially save lives that would be lost. Potentially living persons (as defined biologically) will be terminated, but they will feel no pain and they have not developed enough to have thoughts. People that do feel pain and have real lives will be saved from pre-mature death.

That's an intersting way to look at it. However, I don't view the bombing of Japan in quite the same way.

(Note: I have heard of the evidense that Japan planned to surrender, though I must admit I have never payed that much attention to exactly what this evidense was. Considering that in 1941 Japan was talking peace to our face, then let their real plans be known on December 7th of that year, I find it hard to feel guilty about any "evidense" that emerged. But I digress...)

Despite what some will say, nobody leading this country has ever wanted war. It is an extreme solution to an extreme problem. The same can be said about the bombing of Japan at the end of World War 2. I seriously doubt Truman sat rubbing his hands together saying "Oh boy! This is great!".

It was an extreme solution. Truman knew it would end the war and prevent the enemy from killing more of us than we did of them. The alternative: Let the war continue, surely costing more lives while saving none, and the bombs can just sit there and not be used.

So, looking at it from that angle, what your reasoning says is that stem cell research should go forward because we know it will save lives and prevent death. The alternative: Let the current research continue, surely costing lives while saving none, and the stem cells can just sit there and not be used.

This is not the case. We don't know what stem cell research will actually do, or if it will ultimately save lives. It may very well be another money pit, costing billions of dollars with no real results. The alternative: Babies.

Just a different perspective.

 

[CharlestonChad]

That's an intersting way to look at it. However, I don't view the bombing of Japan in quite the same way.

(Note: I have heard of the evidense that Japan planned to surrender, though I must admit I have never payed that much attention to exactly what this evidense was. Considering that in 1941 Japan was talking peace to our face, then let their real plans be known on December 7th of that year, I find it hard to feel guilty about any "evidense" that emerged. But I digress...)

Despite what some will say, nobody leading this country has ever wanted war. It is an extreme solution to an extreme problem. The same can be said about the bombing of Japan at the end of World War 2. I seriously doubt Truman sat rubbing his hands together saying "Oh boy! This is great!".

It was an extreme solution. Truman knew it would end the war and prevent the enemy from killing more of us than we did of them. The alternative: Let the war continue, surely costing more lives while saving none, and the bombs can just sit there and not be used.

So, looking at it from that angle, what your reasoning says is that stem cell research should go forward because we know it will save lives and prevent death. The alternative: Let the current research continue, surely costing lives while saving none, and the stem cells can just sit there and not be used.

This is not the case. We don't know what stem cell research will actually do, or if it will ultimately save lives. It may very well be another money pit, costing billions of dollars with no real results. The alternative: Babies.

Just a different perspective.

I like your perspective, but I have to disagree with the last two paragraphs. Yes, we don't know if the research will save lives, but Truman didn't fully know if the bomb would end the war or if lives would be saved. It was a gamble, which paid off in favor of the USA. We don't know if this research can save lives, but we will never know unless we try. The ESC's are frozen in labs. They can either be tested on, or trashed. Without the ESC research, those "snowflake" kids that the president paraded around would not exist. So ESC can both develop children that would likely have perished before becoming a fetus or it could help save the lives of those fighting diseases, both are pluses in my book.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I would disagree, I think it was an obvious end ot the war, that's why he did it. The only gamble was just how much devastation they would cause.

But anyway....

 

[Abbey Normal]

1. There was a statement made that "A certain number of people are going to kill. It's just in their nature." This statement was made with 2 purposes. The first was to equate abortion with murder and the second was to ask "if we don't put an emphasis on preventing murders, why should we bother trying to prevent abortions, just make them illegal".

2. Since Abbey is going to call women who get abortions murderers, I assume that she would apply her own statement (the one in quotes above) to women who have abortions.

3. Since it's her assertion that murderers, including women who get abortions using her own standards, kill because it's "in their nature", my question still stands.

4. I don't recall trying to dishonestly compare a woman who gets an abortion with a mass-murderer the likes of Hitler. As a matter of fact, I'm not the one alleging abortion equals pre-meditated, 1st-degree murder. The "game" being played is air-raid practice. When someone throws your own words back at you, you go diving for the nearest foxhole...after dispensing chaff of course.

My analogy was perfectly vaild, and your attempts to twist it (as Gunny so clearly pointed out), do not create in me a need to explain the same point over again. And rest assured that if you meant me, I did not dive for any foxhole, as you put it. I choose not to continue to debate you in particular, because I have seen over an over again your, to put it gently, less-than-forthright debating practices. Sorry; not worth my time, hombre.

 

[MissileMan]

My analogy was perfectly vaild, and your attempts to twist it (as Gunny so clearly pointed out), do not create in me a need to explain the same point over again. And rest assured that if you meant me, I did not dive for any foxhole, as you put it. I choose not to continue to debate you in particular, because I have seen over an over again your, to put it gently, less-than-forthright debating practices. Sorry; not worth my time, hombre.

I asked a question based on YOUR criteria. I didn't twist anything you've said. Based on your statements that "women who get abortions are murderers" and "murders kill because it's in their nature" I asked you a question. You dodged the question by calling it weird.

I've re-explained why I asked the question and now you're dodging it again by accusing me of twisting your words and using "less-than-forthright debating practices".

Someone who lacks the conviction to stand behind what they've written has a lot of nerve accusing someone else of being "less than forthright".

By the way, to suggest that attempts to prevent unwanted pregnancies should be abandoned in favor of just making abortion illegal has got to be one of the more assinine suggestions I've seen posted on this board. I'll bet you think we should stop immunizing against diseases and let them run their natural courses too.

 

[Gunny]

Murder is the unlawful ending of another living humans life. ESC's are not living humans, they are cells with potential to create living humans. So to say the destruction of an ESC is murder, then you are also commiting murder when you wear a condom during sex, or your girlfriend is on birth control. A life could be create, but it wasn't, which is the same as what happens when ESC's are destroyed.

Guess you missed the "while you may have some aesthetic, clinical/scientifc name for it," part.

 

[Gunny]

1. There was a statement made that "A certain number of people are going to kill. It's just in their nature." This statement was made with 2 purposes. The first was to equate abortion with murder and the second was to ask "if we don't put an emphasis on preventing murders, why should we bother trying to prevent abortions, just make them illegal".

Posting presumptions on your part as final conclusions.

2. Since Abbey is going to call women who get abortions murderers, I assume that she would apply her own statement (the one in quotes above) to women who have abortions.

Did she?

3. Since it's her assertion that murderers, including women who get abortions using her own standards, kill because it's "in their nature", my question still stands.

4. I don't recall trying to dishonestly compare a woman who gets an abortion with a mass-murderer the likes of Hitler. As a matter of fact, I'm not the one alleging abortion equals pre-meditated, 1st-degree murder. The "game" being played is air-raid practice. When someone throws your own words back at you, you go diving for the nearest foxhole...after dispensing chaff of course.

I doubt anyone is running for cover because of your strawman argument.

 

[Abbey Normal]

2. Since Abbey is going to call women who get abortions murderers, I assume that she would apply her own statement (the one in quotes above) to women who have abortions.

Did she?

Thank God for people like you, Gunny, who actually have reading comprehension skills. In fact, nothing he says reflects reality; hence my refusal to waste my time replying. I've seen him play this game with too many people.

 

[MissileMan]

Posting presumptions on your part as final conclusions.

Stating an obvious conclusion based on what someone writes is not presumption. If someone writes "abortion is murder", it's not presumptive to conclude that person is trying to equate abortion with murder or to conclude the person is calling women who get abortions murderers, especially when that person has said abortion is pre-meditated, 1st degree murder. The rest of what you claim is presumption on my part is almost a word for word quote. So, instead of releasing yet another batch of chaff, how about presenting an argument of substance.

Did she?

If you aren't sure, why are you questioning me about it when I know she did?

 

[MissileMan]

Thank God for people like you, Gunny, who actually have reading comprehension skills. In fact, nothing he says reflects reality; hence my refusal to waste my time replying. I've seen him play this game with too many people.

Did you or did you not write that abortion is pre-meditated, 1st degree murder?

Second question for you after you answer "I did" to the above question:
If abortion is pre-meditated, 1st degree murder, a woman who has an abortion would be?
a. A jay walker
b. A drug pusher
c. a murderer

 

[Gunny]

Stating an obvious conclusion based on what someone writes is not presumption. If someone writes "abortion is murder", it's not presumptive to conclude that person is trying to equate abortion with murder or to conclude the person is calling women who get abortions murderers, especially when that person has said abortion is pre-meditated, 1st degree murder. The rest of what you claim is presumption on my part is almost a word for word quote. So, instead of releasing yet another batch of chaff, how about presenting an argument of substance.



If you aren't sure, why are you questioning me about it when I know she did?

I've made an argument of substance. Yours appears to be of one of fantasy, and your adding one and one and coming up three.

Besides, there's no guessing where I'm concerned. I said it straight up... abortion is murder; therefore, those who have abortions commit murder. I have NO problem arguing that with you. Just don't try and spin those simple facts into anything more than they are; especially, seeing how "well" your logical conclusions come out.

I never said I wasn't sure. Unlike you and your presumptuous accusatory post, I just asked.

 

[Gunny]

Did you or did you not write that abortion is pre-meditated, 1st degree murder?

Second question for you after you answer "I did" to the above question:
If abortion is pre-meditated, 1st degree murder, a woman who has an abortion would be?
a. A jay walker
b. A drug pusher
c. a murderer

Could be all three.

 

[MissileMan]

I've made an argument of substance. Yours appears to be of one of fantasy, and your adding one and one and coming up three.

Your just saying so doesn't make it so. Explain how my argument is fantasy and how I'm arriving at the "wrong" conclusion based on what Abbey has written.

Besides, there's no guessing where I'm concerned. I said it straight up... abortion is murder; therefore, those who have abortions commit murder. I have NO problem arguing that with you. Just don't try and spin those simple facts into anything more than they are; especially, seeing how "well" your logical conclusions come out.

You keep calling it spin and the assertion is baseless. Abbey made a statement that murderers commit murder because it's in their nature. I merely asked if she was applying that same statement to women who get abortions because she calls them murderers too. That's when the evasive maneuvers commenced.

I never said I wasn't sure. Unlike you and your presumptuous accusatory post, I just asked.

If you already knew, what was your purpose in asking?

 

[Gunny]

Your just saying so doesn't make it so. Explain how my argument is fantasy and how I'm arriving at the "wrong" conclusion based on what Abbey has written.

I already have. Feel free to scroll in reverse.



You keep calling it spin and the assertion is baseless. Abbey made a statement that murderers commit murder because it's in their nature. I merely asked if she was applying that same statement to women who get abortions because she calls them murderers too. That's when the evasive maneuvers commenced.

Yet another erroneous conclusion on your part. When I used the word "spin," it was in reference to ME saying that abortion is murder. In case you haven't noticed, Abbey's not playing. But I AM.

My point is, if you wish to discuss the merit of what I posted, that is fine. Just don't spin it into anything more than what it is.

My purpose for asking is because you obviously did NOT know.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Could be all three.

Aren't you the one who is always trying to play Bill O'Reilly by accusing your opposition of "deflecting" and "dodging the question"?

 

[Gunny]

Aren't you the one who is always trying to play Bill O'Reilly by accusing your opposition of "deflecting" and "dodging the question"?

Oh look ... it's "Mr Giggles."

I'm dodging NOTHING, Howdy Doody. I made the EXACT same statement Missileman claims Abbey is making. He seems to be more worried with what she said than with the statement itself.

Either way, I don't see what that has to do with "Mr Wild-n-Crazy Guy" from the peanut gallery.

 

[MissileMan]

Yet another erroneous conclusion on your part. When I used the word "spin," it was in reference to ME saying that abortion is murder. In case you haven't noticed, Abbey's not playing. But I AM.

I don't believe that I've discussed YOUR opinion of abortion in this thread at all, so I fail to see how I've spun or attempted to put a spin on anything you've written. As such, your admonishment about spinning would be "presumptive" wouldn't it?

My purpose for asking is because you obviously did NOT know.

If you will refer to post #31 in this thread you will find that I, in fact, did. This appears to be another presumption on your part. Refresh my memory...isn't there a term for someone who admonishes someone for committing an offense of which they themselves are guilty?