PDA

View Full Version : A sad day for science



sgreger1
08-31-2010, 10:17 PM
Well, looks like last week the courts struck down the one good thing Obama has done since he's been in: federal funding of stem-cell research.


http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2013042,00.html



I can't stress enough how important and revolutionary this regenitive technology is going to be for us in the future. And progress is being made so fast, people who are in their 20's-30's today may get a very real return on investment by the time they get old. The ability to regrow cells is so absolutely essential to the entire medical field I cannot believe that anyone is against this.



Where do you stand on the stem-cell debate, particularly on the use of embryonic stem cells?

Side 1 believes: 5 day old embryos are people, and even if aborted they should not be used for science. Some believe this may lead to people getting more abortions on purpose in order to nake more embryonic stem-cells available.

Side 2 believes: That re-growing organs and solving some of the worlds worst diseases is priority #1. We are not killing children or forcing abortions, rather using embryos that would otherwise go in the trash to cure potentially hundreds of millions of people from life threatening diseases. Soldiers who lose limbs in combat could regrow them and people with heart, liver,or kidney problems could get have new organs grown for them that can then be transplanted.


What do you think?

tom502
08-31-2010, 10:38 PM
Do they pay women to give up their fetoes, however it's spelled?
If so, welfare moms might jump on this.

Hmm, what Hitler do?

c.nash
08-31-2010, 10:43 PM
Can't they get all the stem cells out of the embilical cords now and still do the research without ****ing with featuses?

RobsanX
08-31-2010, 10:56 PM
But Pat Robertson told us stem cells are the devil, so I'm against them...

Big L
08-31-2010, 11:16 PM
I can sympathize with #1, and I don't encourage abortion, but on the other hand people are not going to stop having abortions anytime soon. Why let it go to waste, the fetuses are already dead. I don't think people will start having abortions just to give their embryos to science, I mean having an abortion isn't a casual procedure. I support #2, there could be some very important scientific breakthroughs.

tom502
08-31-2010, 11:22 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5EmVrdDe9Gs/ScboIJge3mI/AAAAAAAABxw/W5IfpMeMEjM/s400/Christopher+Reeve+South+Park.jpg

sgreger1
08-31-2010, 11:56 PM
Do they pay women to give up their fetoes, however it's spelled?
If so, welfare moms might jump on this.

Hmm, what Hitler do?



No, it is illegal to offer any kind of compensation. It's the same thing as opting to have your organs donated if you die for some reason. No profit, no anything, just using something that would be thrown in the trash towards helping other people.

sgreger1
08-31-2010, 11:58 PM
Can't they get all the stem cells out of the embilical cords now and still do the research without ****ing with featuses?


No, there are different types of stem cells, embryonic are the most potent and can be used for a wider range of treatments. Adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, and the umbilical cord type (i forget their name ), all play a big part of this. Without embryonic stem cells, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay less can be accomplished, since they are the most important ingredient. For example, the ones from umbilical cord blood can only cure a small range of diseases.


There is no alternative to embryonic stem cells right now. If we allow funding, at some point in the future they will find a way to better utilize other stem cells or even manufacture them.

PipenSnus
09-01-2010, 12:16 AM
I'm all for stem cell research, particularly when there are lines of cells currently sitting in freezers waiting to be used. Those cells can serve no other purpose but research now -- if not used before their shelf life expires, they're medical waste. And stem cell research can save lives. A lot of lives.

There is great hope that we may be able to find other sources besides embryos for stem cells, but only if research is allowed to continue. No woman has an abortion in order to increase the number of stem cells. That's just ludicrous. To say stem cell research promotes abortion is simply ignorant. Health care policy, and all other political decisions, for that matter, need to be decided on the basis of reason, not ideology.

truthwolf1
09-01-2010, 12:54 AM
We need to move forward but big pharma also needs to profit from moving forward.

sgreger1
09-01-2010, 01:08 AM
I'm all for stem cell research, particularly when there are lines of cells currently sitting in freezers waiting to be used. Those cells can serve no other purpose but research now -- if not used before their shelf life expires, they're medical waste. And stem cell research can save lives. A lot of lives.

There is great hope that we may be able to find other sources besides embryos for stem cells, but only if research is allowed to continue. No woman has an abortion in order to increase the number of stem cells. That's just ludicrous. To say stem cell research promotes abortion is simply ignorant. Health care policy, and all other political decisions, for that matter, need to be decided on the basis of reason, not ideology.

Exactly!

This is like back in the day when the indians would't let you take their picture because they believed it would steal their soul. If we had allowed people to halt any progress in science because of "what if's", we would not have any of the facilities we have today, there would be no Large Hedron collider, there would never have been a man on the moon, and there would be no delicious morphine when you go to the Dr.

The implications of stem cell technology are HUGE. This is like inventing electricity but for the medical field. GROWING ****ING BODY PARTS WHEN YOURS BREAK. This would be the largest leap in all of human history if we could regrow a new heart to replace the one you damaged from drinking like a fish your whole life.

There is a whole host of issues to deal with, such as "when people live longer, more resources are consumed", but that is a different debate. The point is that this is something big and we need to be investing in it.


To quote Peter Griffin from Family Guy:

Peter: "How long was I in there"
Louis: "5 minutes"
Peter: "WHY AREN'T WE FUNDING THIS??"

Simplysnus
09-01-2010, 01:16 AM
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Embryos+good+stem+cell+progress/3448214/story.html

sgreger1
09-01-2010, 01:24 AM
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Embryos+good+stem+cell+progress/3448214/story.html


This link explains why embryonic stem cells are so important very well:


As a reminder, embryonic stem cells (ESCs) come from days-old embryos and the embryo must be destroyed to extract them. But they are pluripotent -- they have the potential to turn into any one of the body's approximately 200 kinds of mature cell types. They could be blood, bone, brain or heart cells.

Consequently, those in favour of ESC research live in the hope that one day these cells will regenerate organs, heal spinal cord injuries and reverse progressive diseases like Alzheimer's.

In contrast, adult stem cells are mature cells that typically come from the bone marrow or the blood. But they only have the potential to turn into the cells from their tissue of origin.

Simplysnus
09-01-2010, 02:07 AM
This link explains why embryonic stem cells are so important very well:


As a reminder, embryonic stem cells (ESCs) come from days-old embryos and the embryo must be destroyed to extract them. But they are pluripotent -- they have the potential to turn into any one of the body's approximately 200 kinds of mature cell types. They could be blood, bone, brain or heart cells.

Consequently, those in favour of ESC research live in the hope that one day these cells will regenerate organs, heal spinal cord injuries and reverse progressive diseases like Alzheimer's.

In contrast, adult stem cells are mature cells that typically come from the bone marrow or the blood. But they only have the potential to turn into the cells from their tissue of origin.

Why did you not paste the part discounting your alarmist reaction too???

sgreger1
09-01-2010, 08:09 AM
Why did you not paste the part discounting your alarmist reaction too???



Im sorry, perhaps i missed it. In what way was my "alarmist reaction" countered by your article? I didnt read the end of it.


Either way, it doesnt matter, this anti-stem cell thing is like fighting against the use of penecilin or of sterylizing hospital equipment after each use. The implications of stem cell research are too large to not have an "alarmist reaction" when i hear its being blocked, yet again. Of all the shit we waste money on, the one thing we wont spend for is to help research something that could save our civilians, and give our military a leading edge.


No one bats an eye when they hear we are 13 trillion in debt, yet if americans finds out that somewhere a poor person is getting a free lunch or that evil science is at it again, everyone goes into a panic about how we must stop this immediately.




The ruling was legit because the question was did it violate this 90's law, which it clearly did. My question is why we are not repealing said law so we can move forward into the future.

ChaoticGemini
09-01-2010, 10:02 AM
The ruling was legit because the question was did it violate this 90's law, which it clearly did. My question is why we are not repealing said law so we can move forward into the future.

I agree with this ^^^

IMHO, the paranoid people are welcome to sit on the sidelines to watch and die as the rest of us study this and find cures.

WickedKitchen
09-01-2010, 11:10 AM
How could anyone in good conscience not be for this type of research? I suppose the invisible man in the sky might not like it, but nobody truly knows that either. To me, this is an opportunity for the success of America as we know it. The laws banning this sort of research are asinine and it's proven that more research can and most-likely will lead to tremendous gains in medical science. Stopping this type of science is hindering the proliferation of human existence. There will come a time when this is necessary and we will look back at the foolishness of our current age. Hell, I'd even advocate for the payment for embryos. I could come up with several points to support it but that would surely ruffle some feathers.

I had better keep my trap shut now. Y'know there was a time where people feared having electricity in their homes because they actually thought that the current would shoot forth from the outlet across the room and kill them. Humans are so weird.

Simplysnus
09-01-2010, 01:59 PM
Im sorry, perhaps i missed it. In what way was my "alarmist reaction" countered by your article? I didnt read the end of it.


Either way, it doesnt matter, this anti-stem cell thing is like fighting against the use of penecilin or of sterylizing hospital equipment after each use. The implications of stem cell research are too large to not have an "alarmist reaction" when i hear its being blocked, yet again. Of all the shit we waste money on, the one thing we wont spend for is to help research something that could save our civilians, and give our military a leading edge.


No one bats an eye when they hear we are 13 trillion in debt, yet if americans finds out that somewhere a poor person is getting a free lunch or that evil science is at it again, everyone goes into a panic about how we must stop this immediately.




The ruling was legit because the question was did it violate this 90's law, which it clearly did. My question is why we are not repealing said law so we can move forward into the future.

You didn't read the end of it? lol!

Anyways, treatments are already coming out for other types of stem cell research, but not this one. Who knows, it may be by the time that using embryonic stem cells is actually feasible we've already solved those problems, and it went for naught. Probably one of the reasons private investment is not flowing as quickly to ESC research.

The debt analogy is a red herring, most people I know aren't happy about the debt either.

Simplysnus
09-01-2010, 02:01 PM
How could anyone in good conscience not be for this type of research? I suppose the invisible man in the sky might not like it, but nobody truly knows that either. To me, this is an opportunity for the success of America as we know it. The laws banning this sort of research are asinine and it's proven that more research can and most-likely will lead to tremendous gains in medical science. Stopping this type of science is hindering the proliferation of human existence. There will come a time when this is necessary and we will look back at the foolishness of our current age. Hell, I'd even advocate for the payment for embryos. I could come up with several points to support it but that would surely ruffle some feathers.

I had better keep my trap shut now. Y'know there was a time where people feared having electricity in their homes because they actually thought that the current would shoot forth from the outlet across the room and kill them. Humans are so weird.
I'm just curious, should people be allowed to sell any organ they so choose? Say someone living in poverty who wants to sell his heart so that his family is well taken care of.

Simplysnus
09-01-2010, 02:03 PM
In my view people who are against abortion are against ESC because it causes us to be addicted to the million plus abortions that happen each year, provides extra incentive if you will to look the other way, and when someone is benefiting they can rationalize almost anything.

WickedKitchen
09-01-2010, 02:53 PM
I'm just curious, should people be allowed to sell any organ they so choose? Say someone living in poverty who wants to sell his heart so that his family is well taken care of.

Yes. I don't think that you could make a blanket rule about that though. Each and every case would have to be taken individually which we seem to have a hard time doing in this country. Just because it's good for one person doesn't mean that it's good for another. For this same reason I would sacrifice myself for my children if I were unable to provide for them in a catastrophic situation. I'm not talking insurance money or anything nor suicide...that is for the weak. If the family would perish dragging me though the wilderness and they would survive without me then I should be left behind. I guess I can't give you a comprehensive answer without knowing more facts but if you're asking for a quick answer to a quick question then the answer would be yes.

RobsanX
09-01-2010, 02:59 PM
What would Mr. Dolby think?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fI8834iCgo

WickedKitchen
09-01-2010, 03:02 PM
I could come up with some arguments on how we might be better off if there were millions more abortions...

RobsanX
09-01-2010, 03:21 PM
I could come up with some arguments on how we might be better off if there were millions more abortions...

Some estimates put the number of abortions since 1973 at around 50,000,000. I would like to know who would have taken care of 50,000,000 unwanted children.

dEFinitionofEPIC
09-01-2010, 03:27 PM
I'm just curious, should people be allowed to sell any organ they so choose? Say someone living in poverty who wants to sell his heart so that his family is well taken care of.

I say absolutely not. Creating a market for organs would set a horrible precedent. Ever seen Repoman-the Genetic Opera?

tom502
09-01-2010, 03:39 PM
Or COMA.

texastorm
09-01-2010, 03:54 PM
I will donate several members of my family to science if someone will take them. Call it extreme late term abortion if you will. It's never to late to fix a mistake!

sgreger1
09-01-2010, 05:31 PM
I say absolutely not. Creating a market for organs would set a horrible precedent. Ever seen Repoman-the Genetic Opera?


Yah, I could see that leading downa bad road. I am a donor on my driverse license, so if I die ina car crash they can have whatever they want for free. but charging for it will lead to desperate people giving theirs up for money which probably isn't a great idea. Anyone ever see Repo-man I think it was called? Where they repo the transplanted organs by cutting them out of your body? Lol

sgreger1
09-01-2010, 05:36 PM
You didn't read the end of it? lol!

Anyways, treatments are already coming out for other types of stem cell research, but not this one. Who knows, it may be by the time that using embryonic stem cells is actually feasible we've already solved those problems, and it went for naught. Probably one of the reasons private investment is not flowing as quickly to ESC research.

The debt analogy is a red herring, most people I know aren't happy about the debt either.


Private investors are afraid of doinga lot if embryonic stem cells because the anti-science crowd may convince government to shut down research on it all together,a nd then their money will have been wasted. The fact is the ESC's can turn into any type of cell and grow any organ, whereas adult stem cells from bone marrow etc can only grow the same organ it came from. So there is a much wider use for ESC's. I still contend that in the future we will find a way around it and be able to do it without embryonic stem cells, but cutting funding is probably not going to get us there any faster.


Sorry I didn't read to the end of it, I was at work and didn't have time. They are about to start human trials on paraplegics to restore movement to those who cannot walk. If they can accomplish that, hopefully it will show some people how important this research is.


I'm not big on abortion and in my family I wouldn't get an abortion, but I think that if it's happening anyways, why let it go to waste. It is a reasonable argument though that it would lead to more pro-abortion laws since there is profit/benefit in it if we are allowed to use them for medical research. And we only need a small amount for research, once we perfect it and begin using them on humans, we will need millions more. Knowing this country, that could lead to some bullshit like child rationing or one child policies, with mandatory embryo donation or something. So I can certainly see both sides of this argument.

deebocools
09-01-2010, 05:39 PM
has the whole world become stupid? Have we all forgotten what "dead" means? NOT ALIVE. Not good for anything except to help the living. This is a such a non-debate it's like transcendental to me.

WickedKitchen
09-01-2010, 10:20 PM
Ahh...the what does it mean to be alive thread...that was a good one.

http://www.snuson.com/forum/showthread.php?15965-What-does-it-mean-for-something-to-be-alive&highlight=alive

NonServiam
09-01-2010, 11:15 PM
This is a tough one for me. It used to be that when it came to issues like this and abortion, I really didn't give a shit. But when I was in the medical field for a few years I got the chance to see the aftermath of early and late term abortions first hand. The rapid insertion of a sharp instrument in the base of a fetus’ skull followed by the evacuation of brain matter via suction, was to me…brutal. To me early term abortion was no kinder as they would pull pieces out one by one…hand here, foot there. This did have an impact on me, and then after my daughter was born (very prematurely, the gestation of some late term abortions) I did a 180 on the issue.

So....Do I agree with abortion...No, not anymore. Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control in this country due to immaturity, irresponsibility, and poor decision making.

Do I agree with the stem cell research of already aborted fetuses....Yes. If they have already been aborted, then I guess we should at least reap some benefit. Children are giving by nature, and I feel that if that child had a voice, they would at least want someone to perhaps benefit from their death.

But then again, if we find benefit in abortion, I fear it will help to spur the acceptance of the practice among the populous.

I do not agree with embryonic stem cell research when it pertains to in-vitro fertility clinics, that purposefully fertilize eggs and then must kill the embryo in order to extract the vital cells. Now if you are dealing with the very early stages, the blastocyst which consists of approximately 5-7 cells, that I can tolerate a little easier.

I also believe that we are moving further and further away in the human race in terms of seeing value and sacredness in the essence of human life. When our existence is stripped of this “essence” everything will become very sterile…alien .

I could easily see a future point in our existence where actual human intercourse will become obsolete and be viewed as unsanitary, as we will be using alternative means to reproduce. We will no longer be on this planet, and will have found a way to sustain ourselves in outer space. The Sci-Fi movies are not too far from a possible reality in my opinion.

I am not religious, I am not Christian, but I am however spiritual, and I think in ways “old fashioned”.

Big L
09-02-2010, 12:16 AM
This is a tough one for me. It used to be that when it came to issues like this and abortion, I really didn't give a shit. But when I was in the medical field for a few years I got the chance to see the aftermath of early and late term abortions first hand. The rapid insertion of a sharp instrument in the base of a fetus’ skull followed by the evacuation of brain matter via suction, was to me…brutal. To me early term abortion was no kinder as they would pull pieces out one by one…hand here, foot there. This did have an impact on me, and then after my daughter was born (very prematurely, the gestation of some late term abortions) I did a 180 on the issue.

So....Do I agree with abortion...No, not anymore. Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control in this country due to immaturity, irresponsibility, and poor decision making.

Do I agree with the stem cell research of already aborted fetuses....Yes. If they have already been aborted, then I guess we should at least reap some benefit. Children are giving by nature, and I feel that if that child had a voice, they would at least want someone to perhaps benefit from their death.

But then again, if we find benefit in abortion, I fear it will help to spur the acceptance of the practice among the populous.

I do not agree with embryonic stem cell research when it pertains to in-vitro fertility clinics, that purposefully fertilize eggs and then must kill the embryo in order to extract the vital cells. Now if you are dealing with the very early stages, the blastocyst which consists of approximately 5-7 cells, that I can tolerate a little easier.

I also believe that we are moving further and further away in the human race in terms of seeing value and sacredness in the essence of human life. When our existence is stripped of this “essence” everything will become very sterile…alien .

I could easily see a future point in our existence where actual human intercourse will become obsolete and be viewed as unsanitary, as we will be using alternative means to reproduce. We will no longer be on this planet, and will have found a way to sustain ourselves in outer space. The Sci-Fi movies are not too far from a possible reality in my opinion.

I am not religious, I am not Christian, but I am however spiritual, and I think in ways “old fashioned”.

I agree with you. I guess I am old-fashioned in some ways as well. I'm not in the medical field, but my brother and his wife are, and from what they've told and shown me I know abortions are not pleasant or just a removal of tissue. Totally taking religion out of the picture, the fetuses were alive. We should not take that fact lightly. Personally, I am against abortion, but I would not make that decision for another, nor do I want the government to make it for others. I can't judge someone else's circumstances for getting an abortion. BUT, if the aborted fetuses already exist and are going to be destroyed, it seems ludicrous not to do research and gain benefit from it. I can't help feeling conflicted about the issue, but not so much that I would outright ban the research.

sgreger1
09-02-2010, 12:24 AM
This is a tough one for me. It used to be that when it came to issues like this and abortion, I really didn't give a shit. But when I was in the medical field for a few years I got the chance to see the aftermath of early and late term abortions first hand. The rapid insertion of a sharp instrument in the base of a fetus’ skull followed by the evacuation of brain matter via suction, was to me…brutal. To me early term abortion was no kinder as they would pull pieces out one by one…hand here, foot there. This did have an impact on me, and then after my daughter was born (very prematurely, the gestation of some late term abortions) I did a 180 on the issue.

So....Do I agree with abortion...No, not anymore. Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control in this country due to immaturity, irresponsibility, and poor decision making.

Do I agree with the stem cell research of already aborted fetuses....Yes. If they have already been aborted, then I guess we should at least reap some benefit. Children are giving by nature, and I feel that if that child had a voice, they would at least want someone to perhaps benefit from their death.

But then again, if we find benefit in abortion, I fear it will help to spur the acceptance of the practice among the populous.

I do not agree with embryonic stem cell research when it pertains to in-vitro fertility clinics, that purposefully fertilize eggs and then must kill the embryo in order to extract the vital cells. Now if you are dealing with the very early stages, the blastocyst which consists of approximately 5-7 cells, that I can tolerate a little easier.

I also believe that we are moving further and further away in the human race in terms of seeing value and sacredness in the essence of human life. When our existence is stripped of this “essence” everything will become very sterile…alien .

I could easily see a future point in our existence where actual human intercourse will become obsolete and be viewed as unsanitary, as we will be using alternative means to reproduce. We will no longer be on this planet, and will have found a way to sustain ourselves in outer space. The Sci-Fi movies are not too far from a possible reality in my opinion.

I am not religious, I am not Christian, but I am however spiritual, and I think in ways “old fashioned”.




^^^ This post sums up 100% of my feelings on the subject. Every single word. I am 100% opposed to late term abortion, or anything past the point of it just being lump of cells. Once it starts looking like a baby, that's a baby imo. (Fyi, embryonic stem cells can come from 5 day old fetuses, so not really a life yet if you ask me)

My wife and I got pregnant when i was 23 and she was 22, I was stationed 2,000 miles away from where my wife lived, I was in the army and constantly moving, and we hadn't known each other for long. We considered abortion. Now, a common topic that is brought up often, is the fact that "I cannot believe we even remotely considered abortion." Literally, after having raised my daughter to nearly 2 years of age, the very idea that we may have denied her existance in order to avoid some inconvenience on our behalf is unthinkable at best.


Frankly I don't know how anyone with children could be okay with abortion.

PipenSnus
09-02-2010, 12:30 AM
I don't want to argue about whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether or not a fetus is an independent life form from the mother, at any stage of development. But I will argue that the party that decides whether a particular abortion is right or wrong should be the woman in question, and not the state. Yes, it would be better if everyone used birth control and practiced safer sex every time, but that's not the world we live in. Humans are irrational animals that are capable of rational thought. Humans do foolish things more often then not, especially when it comes to instinctual behaviors like sexuality. If we want to punish foolishness, though, why start with women in desperate situations? Wouldn't it be more sensible to begin by punishing the Wall Street bankers who have foolishly wrecked and plundered our economic system, or the war hawks who can't stop interfering in other countries' politics? Where is our sense of priorities? It seems to me that most people are straining at gnats and swallowing camels, to use a Biblical expression.

NonServiam
09-02-2010, 12:35 AM
^^^ E=This post sums up 100% of my feelings on the subject. Every single word.

Embryonic stem cell research is really one of those topics that I'm so torn on. There can be a lot of grey area sometimes.

On one hand I really embrace science, but on the other hand I feel that maybe we have become (and will become) so advanced that we will begin to conflict with the natural order of things. Like natural selection for instance. War, famine, death, disease, and pestilence exist for a reason.

They don't exist because of some cloven-hoofed, pitch fork wielding Burt Reynolds look-a-like, nor are those misfortunes bestowed upon us from the wrath of some vengeful god in the sky. They exist as they are part of the natural balance. You must destroy to create. It's the whole yin/yang thing. Much like you said that this research would do many things to prolong and save lives, but then the strain on our natural and man-made resourses will increase.

NonServiam
09-02-2010, 12:51 AM
I don't want to argue about whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether or not a fetus is an independent life form from the mother, at any stage of development. But I will argue that the party that decides whether a particular abortion is right or wrong should be the woman in question, and not the state. Yes, it would be better if everyone used birth control and practiced safer sex every time, but that's not the world we live in. Humans are irrational animals that are capable of rational thought. Humans do foolish things more often then not, especially when it comes to instinctual behaviors like sexuality. If we want to punish foolishness, though, why start with women in desperate situations? Wouldn't it be more sensible to begin by punishing the Wall Street bankers who have foolishly wrecked and plundered our economic system, or the war hawks who can't stop interfering in other countries' politics? Where is our sense of priorities? It seems to me that most people are straining at gnats and swallowing camels, to use a Biblical expression.

I'm not one who really likes to argue the topic either. It's like arguing religion. All you do is spin your wheels. But I do want to address a few points as far as my interpretation.

I guess it really comes down to if you view abortion as an act of murder when you apply the argument of woman's decision vs. gov't decision. And yes, instinct and horomones can really make a person do some foolish things. But I don't see condemning the procedure as punishment. I see it as taking accountability for your actions, rather than destroying life because "you are not ready for a child yet".

And you are correct, there are many people making foolish decisions in the world that need to be punished. To me, a human embryo is a very high priority, and it is something that should have never lost rungs on the ladder.

But like I said, it's a topic that people usually hold very strong convictions on, so debate while sometimes healthy, will always be futile.

Simplysnus
09-02-2010, 01:02 AM
The problem with abortion debates is that at some point in time a person gains the right to protection, and arbitrarily assigning that right without reason beyond appearances of the fetus is disingenous.

sgreger1
09-02-2010, 01:27 AM
The problem with abortion debates is that at some point in time a person gains the right to protection, and arbitrarily assigning that right without reason beyond appearances of the fetus is disingenous.


Well this is the big snag for all parties, the question of "when is it considered alive". I mean at what age does it think? At what age does it feel, or become self aware?

Perhaps in the future we can use some kind of MRI or something to monitor the brain waves of a fetus to establish the exact period in which it comes "online" and should be conisdered a life. As of right now, it's all just everyones personal opinion.

snusjus
09-02-2010, 01:32 AM
I believe extending the lives of living, breathing human beings is far more important than worrying about an embryo. There may be a time in your life when you wished stem-cell research could have been utilized to its full potential.

Simplysnus
09-02-2010, 01:37 AM
Well this is the big snag for all parties, the question of "when is it considered alive". I mean at what age does it think? At what age does it feel, or become self aware?

Perhaps in the future we can use some kind of MRI or something to monitor the brain waves of a fetus to establish the exact period in which it comes "online" and should be conisdered a life. As of right now, it's all just everyones personal opinion.

That doesn't answer how rights become assigned, something growing is not "alive" and on the path to fulfilling potential?

PipenSnus
09-02-2010, 02:15 AM
And you are correct, there are many people making foolish decisions in the world that need to be punished.
You read into my words the exact opposite of what I was trying to convey. I was trying to express the irony of passing judgment on people for making foolish decisions that that affect only their own small world, while others make foolish decisions that negatively affect billions of lives, and go unscathed. I don't care to sit in judgment of a woman who decides to have an abortion, and I don't think society should either.

You say that a human embryo is a very high priority to you, and I respect your subjective opinion. But I strongly disagree with allowing subjective opinion to have the deciding voice in matters of public policy. Reason must prevail.

ChaoticGemini
09-02-2010, 05:28 AM
So....Do I agree with abortion...No, not anymore. Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control in this country due to immaturity, irresponsibility, and poor decision making.

I agree, but this concept makes me support abortion as an option because I feel we create an even worse situation when we force people like this to be parents.

SnusoMatic
09-02-2010, 09:54 AM
i think people should give consent before their bodies are chopped up and used to fix someone else's health problems. but mostly i believe what i believe don't matter to Obama or anyone else.

We in the USA decided abortion was good to go back in the 1973. at that point the fetus/embryo was no longer a person according to the court. so chopping them up to make health products is just the next step in the process of moral decline.

i wonder how long it will be before someone with a small penis can go to the large penis farm and get a big one? my bet is some day I ... i mean they will be able to.

fyi, if you don't agree with me then that's OK but Obama don't care what you think either ;-)

WickedKitchen
09-02-2010, 06:45 PM
I'm jumping back in here.

I have two children and thankfully they were born and so far raised healthy. My wife was older than 35 when she became pregnant with our second child and the doctors and nurses pushed and pushed us to do all the tests to see if the fetus was in some way deficient. We denied every single one of those tests with the understanding that whatever we got we got. If we found out that the baby would be born restarted or something we were not going to abort on those grounds. Now having the two girls we decided that two was what we were going to have. I got a vasectomy (highly recommended, by the way) and if for some reason my wife got pregnant now I would advocate for abortion.

I do think that it's better to abort a fetus because you're not ready to have a baby. If you don't truly want a child you aren't going to raise it with the same vigor you would if you did want it thus creating a potential degradation of society. This wouldn't be true every time of course but I think it's safe to say that the odds are in the favor of the argument I just made.

I also believe that because a man an a woman have intercourse or even get close and create a life it's a biological occurrence. I don't think that life is sacred at that point. The sperm entered the egg and that's why the gestation began. Put the two in a test tube and the same occurrence could be made to happen. What about a woman who is raped? Should that be different? The argument people have for that only supports the argument I made in the previous paragraph.

I totally agree that it should not be the states right to dictate weather or not a woman has the right to choose, but what about the men? Have we no rights in this whatsoever? What happens when a couple decides to create a child and then a few months into it the woman goes berzerk and doesn't want the kid anymore...or the man? Is it right to take that away from him? For these reasons this debate will never end, nor will anyone's arguments be accepted by everyone. That's part of being human...as Pipen said...we're irrational beings. So true, man.

So now that this thread is completely hijacked we should recognize that just about everyone agrees with the initial premise...Stem Cell Research is good and the aborted whatever-stage parasites should be used for science rather than discarded. Someone mentioned when they become self aware. I don't think that happens until about 2 or 3 months AFTER birth. Hell, I'm 36 and I still haven't gotten it 100% yet. ;)

sgreger1
09-02-2010, 07:00 PM
That doesn't answer how rights become assigned, something growing is not "alive" and on the path to fulfilling potential?


And perhaps carbon molecules should be treated as alive as well, and they should recieve legal protection from being damaged. As they are on the path to someday becoming part of something that is alive, right?

I mean i'm not pro abortion in ANY way, but I see a big difference between a 3 day old lump of cells and a little baby floating around in the uterus. We have to draw the line somewhere. Are my balls now a protected group, since they will someday become a living thing?

NonServiam
09-02-2010, 07:02 PM
WickedKitchen: So now that this thread is completely hijacked we should recognize that just about everyone agrees with the initial premise...Stem Cell Research is good and the aborted whatever-stage parasites should be used for science rather than discarded.

We should probably all just call stale-mate, but that won't happen.

Religion, politics, abortion, the ShayTards on Youtube, these are all personal issues that people will hold stong, nearly immovable convictions on.

I came to the realization a while back that we live in a very cruel world full of misfortune, tragedy, and sorrow. We strive to make it a perfect world, but that is unachievable, as it should be. For if we did succeed in achieving a perfect world, we would grow restless and probably destroy ourselves.

Occasionally you will find a sprinkle of hope, happiness, and satisfaction just long enough to numb yourself from our painful reality. It's just the nature of our existence, and one day we and everything around us will become dust condemned to this big rock. Or at least until some large object crashes into us sending us hurling and tumbling through space in a million different directions. So grab you a drink and some tobaccy!

sgreger1
09-02-2010, 07:07 PM
I totally agree that it should not be the states right to dictate weather or not a woman has the right to choose, but what about the men? Have we no rights in this whatsoever? What happens when a couple decides to create a child and then a few months into it the woman goes berzerk and doesn't want the kid anymore...or the man? Is it right to take that away from him?
;)



I agree, I am amazed to see that no one has ever proposed legislation (that I am aware of) that would require the consent of both the father AND the mother before an abortion can occur. It seems unfair to me that it takes a man and a woman to make a child, but from the moment the egg is fertilized it becomes the sole property of the female. She may choose to kill it, or not, and if you get divorced, she always has first dibs. It makes no sense, and it is a spit in the face of the equal rights movement. How can women lobby to be equal, yet ask for special protection? They don't want to have to cook or clean or stay home, they want to be able to work and own land and vote, but yet they don't want men to have a say in the single most improtant matter in regards to a family; childbirth?

It's unfair and unjust on all accounts.

truthwolf1
09-02-2010, 07:13 PM
In a different world I would be pro-life.

NonServiam
09-02-2010, 07:15 PM
I agree, I am amazed to see that no one has ever proposed legislation (that I am aware of) that would require the consent of both the father AND the mother before an abortion can occur. It seems unfair to me that it takes a man and a woman to make a child, but from the moment the egg is fertilized it becomes the sole property of the female. She may choose to kill it, or not, and if you get divorced, she always has first dibs. It makes no sense, and it is a spit in the face of the equal rights movement. How can women lobby to be equal, yet ask for special protection? They don't want to have to cook or clean or stay home, they want to be able to work and own land and vote, but yet they don't want men to have a say in the single most improtant matter in regards to a family; childbirth?

It's unfair and unjust on all accounts.

I was fairly certain I had nothing left to add to this thread, but your post reminded me of something I was thinking of earlier. I'm not trying to instigate further argument here in the thread. I'm just merely stating a thought I had that was somewhat perplexing.

If a man came home from work and found that his pregnant wife had used a turkey baster or a coat hanger to remove their child from her womb, I'm fairly certain that the husband would flip smooth out. Then, what kind of media attention would that attract and public outrage against the mother. Yet, when the same procedure is performed in a medical setting, it is not near as condemned. Sure it's done in a sterile environment by a licensed medical professional, but that still doesn't change the mechanics of the procedure or the end result.

Science has determined this much: Brain function starts at about the 6th week of gestation, followed by a heartbeat soon after in the 6th week.

To me, anything with brain function and a beating heart is a living being. Some would call that opinion, but even medical/science terms, those two functions will always indisputably signify life. That's a fact.

I think the interpretation varies due to the fetus still being inside the womb and has yet to take it's first breath. Doesn't change the status of "living" for me, but it does for others.

So for victim's of rape and incest to have an abortion within the first 5 weeks is acceptable to me.

texastorm
09-02-2010, 08:14 PM
We live in a world that completely over values life. As one of the few rational humans (read by some as emotionless) I say a few less of us would be a good thing.

So I am split. If we prolong productive life by use of stem cell research we also run the risk of a worsening over population problem, but if we don't use the stem cells and make no advances, we are still a plague on the globe. I am hoping something in 2012 happens and reduces our population by at least half. Otherwise there is no hope of a future for mankind anyway. We will expand until we can no longer support the colony with the resources available, then we will implode and die off.

Am I wrong to have such a calloused view of life in the interest of preserving life?

I dont hunt myself, but having lived in a place without population control and watching deer starve themselves to death because they over populated, I am for conservation through hunting. My mind applies that to humanity, although there is no true hunter of man on the planet to control the population, and we are doing a sad job of it ourselves when we over value our lives and those of our loved ones. When people place a value on a "life" that is life by vague definition of brain waves, I cringe on the inside. Not one of you has a memory before age 1... so when does your life really start? But that's an argument for another thread I suppose.

sgreger1
09-02-2010, 08:34 PM
I was fairly certain I had nothing left to add to this thread, but your post reminded me of something I was thinking of earlier. I'm not trying to instigate further argument here in the thread. I'm just merely stating a thought I had that was somewhat perplexing.

If a man came home from work and found that his pregnant wife had used a turkey baster or a coat hanger to remove their child from her womb, I'm fairly certain that the husband would flip smooth out. Then, what kind of media attention would that attract and public outrage against the mother. Yet, when the same procedure is performed in a medical setting, it is not near as condemned. Sure it's done in a sterile environment by a licensed medical professional, but that still doesn't change the mechanics of the procedure or the end result.

Science has determined this much: Brain function starts at about the 6th week of gestation, followed by a heartbeat soon after in the 6th week.

To me, anything with brain function and a beating heart is a living being. Some would call that opinion, but even medical/science terms, those two functions will always indisputably signify life. That's a fact.

I think the interpretation varies due to the fetus still being inside the womb and has yet to take it's first breath. Doesn't change the status of "living" for me, but it does for others.

So for victim's of rape and incest to have an abortion within the first 5 weeks is acceptable to me.



I agree that the 5 week mark is the absolute latest for it to be anythign but murder. If it's got a pulse and a working, thinking brain, that constitutes alive for me.


And think about certain ADD drugs. All they've done is taken meth and put it into pill form. Or pain killers like Oxycontin, all they've done is taken heroin (an opiate) and put it in pill form. It's just that when it's prescribed or performed by a Dr, one assumes that it is at least being done in a safe and medically necessary way and therefore is more acceptable in society.


Like the Euthenasia debate. Is a Dr killing you at your request any different than suicide? And is it for him anything less than murder? If I shot my wife, and then showed up to court with a document with her signature on it saying "I want you to kill me, you have permission", do you think I would get away with it?

sgreger1
09-02-2010, 08:40 PM
Otherwise there is no hope of a future for mankind anyway. We will expand until we can no longer support the colony with the resources available, then we will implode and die off.

Am I wrong to have such a calloused view of life in the interest of preserving life?

there is no true hunter of man on the planet to control the population,


Viruses and diseas are the ultimate hunter of man, and we cannot escape them. As soon as we find a cure, a new strain comes along. they evolve faster than our cures do, therefore they will always be at the top of the food chain.


And I think you are massively underestimating human enginuity. Within the next few hundred years (if we can make it that long), man will find a way to colonize a new frontier, space. It's not even remotely out of the question and is entirely doable, but we (as always) will wait untill the very last second to beging thinking of ways to fix our current situation, instead of researching them beforehand.


If resources got low enough, we wouldn't have enough plastic or medical equipment or ingredients for cures and people would soon start dying due to lack of medical treatment. When the food starts running out, starvation will cull the numbers of those our crops cannot sustain. When the potable water dries up, the remaining water will only sustain as much as it can and the rest will die off. This is all part of the natural checks and balances and we don't need to intervene, it will happen on it's own.


Wait till superaids comes around! lol

truthwolf1
09-02-2010, 09:24 PM
Educated people on average have less children and that is how we will get a hold on overpopulation and dwindling resources. If you also throw in feminism and the internet then you will stagnate any country.

texastorm
09-02-2010, 10:03 PM
Viruses and diseas are the ultimate hunter of man, and we cannot escape them. As soon as we find a cure, a new strain comes along. they evolve faster than our cures do, therefore they will always be at the top of the food chain.


And I think you are massively underestimating human enginuity. Within the next few hundred years (if we can make it that long), man will find a way to colonize a new frontier, space. It's not even remotely out of the question and is entirely doable, but we (as always) will wait untill the very last second to beging thinking of ways to fix our current situation, instead of researching them beforehand.


If resources got low enough, we wouldn't have enough plastic or medical equipment or ingredients for cures and people would soon start dying due to lack of medical treatment. When the food starts running out, starvation will cull the numbers of those our crops cannot sustain. When the potable water dries up, the remaining water will only sustain as much as it can and the rest will die off. This is all part of the natural checks and balances and we don't need to intervene, it will happen on it's own.


Wait till superaids comes around! lol



No I dont think I am underestimating our ingenuity on the grounds that we have already extended our life cycles by at least 20 years in the last 1000 years. In the last 200 years we accelerated our knowledge of the world, and in the last 100 especially more changes have been made to our way of life than in any other 100 year time period I can think of. I bow to any ancient historian here if I am wrong in this though.

What if in the next 100 years we found a way to double our productive lives?

I believe we (if we survive any impending doom of course) will do that eventually. But will we end up like china trying desperately to control a population explosion? Will we push ourselves to the brink of starvation? Will my great great great grandchildren look back on these times in history and wonder why we never did anything to prevent such a disaster?

We all worry so much about keeping our carbon footprints low, but we dont seem to put any thought to the fact that there may just be too many feet to begin with.

tom502
09-02-2010, 10:10 PM
More welfare checks for more babies keeps the overbreeding of the less able to continue on, till the able is overtaken.

sgreger1
09-02-2010, 10:19 PM
No I dont think I am underestimating our ingenuity on the grounds that we have already extended our life cycles by at least 20 years in the last 1000 years. In the last 200 years we accelerated our knowledge of the world, and in the last 100 especially more changes have been made to our way of life than in any other 100 year time period I can think of. I bow to any ancient historian here if I am wrong in this though.

What if in the next 100 years we found a way to double our productive lives?

I believe we (if we survive any impending doom of course) will do that eventually. But will we end up like china trying desperately to control a population explosion? Will we push ourselves to the brink of starvation? Will my great great great grandchildren look back on these times in history and wonder why we never did anything to prevent such a disaster?

We all worry so much about keeping our carbon footprints low, but we dont seem to put any thought to the fact that there may just be too many feet to begin with.


Amen to that. I am not big on eugenics, one child policies, or intentional population reduction plans, but I agree something needs to be done before we all start looking like China. I still say that if we start investing more into space today, with a focus on future colonization, we should be able to accomplish it pretty quickly. Prospects of a new gold rush will draw settlers there by the millions. We don't even have to go far, mars isn't THAT long of a trip and with improvements to technology it could become shorter. And there is so much land there we wouldn't have to worry about it for another thousand years.



I really wish scientists would figure out a quick way of terraforming a planet. I mean mars has everything there we need, even water, if we could just jumpstart the atmosphere it would be like a second earth. There must be a way. Come on America, where's the "show them damn soviets" attitude we used to have. Why don't we spend all of our time trying to one-up everyone anymore? That seemed to be our most successfull period.

tom502
09-02-2010, 10:28 PM
Mars is teeming with life and water, but if "we" went there to habitate it, we'd just destroy it.
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2007/115/3-115-68deg-150-closer.jpg

sgreger1
09-03-2010, 12:18 AM
Mars is teeming with life and water, but if "we" went there to habitate it, we'd just destroy it.
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2007/115/3-115-68deg-150-closer.jpg


Tom, that is clearly not vegetation, it only looks sort of that way because of the color (lack of color and other editing) used in the camera. If you look at real color pics of mars, it is quite obvious that there is nothing there. A forest of trees would be spotted froma mile away but there is no evidence for any of that anywhere on mars. I can take a picture of the cement and do a negative flip on the colors and make it look like plants.

tom502
09-03-2010, 12:26 AM
That's obviously a forest of trees. And has giant lakes, with forests surrounding them.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/St8VsGmMUBI/AAAAAAAAFHo/H2SwpZ3-24U/s400/MarsLakes.jpg

sgreger1
09-03-2010, 12:29 AM
That's obviously a forest of trees. And has giant lakes, with forests surrounding them.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/St8VsGmMUBI/AAAAAAAAFHo/H2SwpZ3-24U/s400/MarsLakes.jpg



Tom, you are looking at a black and white photo, sand dunes in the desert, especially dry sand with cracks looks the same as your pictures. It is not"clearly" trees. If you see the pictures in true color you would see that it is just landscape. Yes there are lakes, but no trees. I could take a picture that looked exactly like the one you posted here on earth, in a place where no vegetation or trees existed.


If mars were covered with treesm someone would be able to see it and take a picture. Ameature astronomers would have picked this up a long time ago.

tom502
09-03-2010, 12:50 AM
Well, at least you admit there are lakes.

sgreger1
09-03-2010, 01:24 AM
Well, at least you admit there are lakes.

I don't think there are any scientists who aren't aware of lakes on mars. Given they are frozen methane for the most part anyways. There are some water deposits (BIG ones) throughout different regions but none of it is liquid.

This was actually contradicted a few months ago (last year some time) when the rover appeared to have water droplets on it, leading to the theory that there may be some kind of active (liquid) water cycle happening on certain regions of mars.

An active water cycle would change a lot of what we believe about the area.


For me the only real evidence of "life" on mars is the methan deposits that keep replenishing themselves on a certain part of the planet. Though there are other ways it could have gotten there, the fact that it's wquantities are sustained would lead to the conclusion that there may be some mirobial life producing it and constantly replenishing the atmosphere with it (since methan will go away after a while unless it is constantly being produced somewhere on the ground).


I don't think there is any actual evidence for plants on mars, but I think that some form of life existing there is certainly not outside of the realm of possibility. We still really only know a small amount about the planet. Other than what we can make out from pictures and from the rover, we don't have much to go on.



One thing to contibute to your ongoing mars conspiracy theory is that they seem to purposely edit some of the colors in their pictures, and I don't mean the regular color correction for scientific study or clarity. It seems like they purposely color things red but often times make huge mistakes. I have some pictures ill post later that show it. But even that may have a decent and rational explanation behind it. I don't think theres any real reason to be hiding anything at this point, it's an otherwise dead planet, and even the dsicovery of microbial life would be pretty irrelevant.

tom502
09-03-2010, 01:43 AM
It is liquid water. Lakes and rivers, and plush forests.

Bigblue1
09-03-2010, 02:28 AM
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/1sm213sharepopcorn.gif

tom502
09-03-2010, 02:57 AM
Your pic doesn't show.

WickedKitchen
09-03-2010, 04:33 AM
Maybe there's a Hollow Mars theory that's powering all those trees...Featons or something.

How the eff did this get to Mars anyhow???

I think Humans are one of the only animals that think weird like this. Many animals, even primates kill babies of the same species and we only assume we know the reason. I think we're pretty correct about most of them but it's a natural thing for them and I'm sure they at least know what they are doing while they're doing it. It's an accepted behavior in the Animal world. We are just animals really all be it with more cognitive skills.


I came to the realization a while back that we live in a very cruel world full of misfortune, tragedy, and sorrow. We strive to make it a perfect world, but that is unachievable, as it should be. For if we did succeed in achieving a perfect world, we would grow restless and probably destroy ourselves.

Occasionally you will find a sprinkle of hope, happiness, and satisfaction just long enough to numb yourself from our painful reality. It's just the nature of our existence, and one day we and everything around us will become dust condemned to this big rock. Or at least until some large object crashes into us sending us hurling and tumbling through space in a million different directions. So grab you a drink and some tobaccy!

Ain't that the truth.