If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2661
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7841 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2661 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | » | Last
 
  2007-07-04 12:03:27 AM  
Human life begins at conception.....


-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)." - K. Moore and T. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition (2003), p. 2.

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." - T. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 7th edition (1995), p. 3.

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." - B. Carlson, Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition (1996), p. 3.

"The preimplantation human embryo warrants serious moral consideration as a developing form of human life." - National Institutes of Health, Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel (Sept. 1994), p. 2.

"[M]ost would agree that human embryos deserve respect as a form of human life." - President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research (September 1999), Vol. I, p. ii.

"Your world was shaped in the first 24 hours after conception. Where your head and feet would sprout, and which side would form your back and which your belly, were being defined in the minutes and hours after sperm and egg united.... What is clear is that developmental biologists will no longer dismiss early mammalian embryos as featureless bundles of cells..." - H. Pearson, "Your destiny, from day one," Nature, 4 July 2002, pp. 14, 15.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter-the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ASI have pointed out many times once the egg is fertilized by the sperm a living organism that is genetically human is created and begins it's life.

The embryo has all the characteristics of an organism.

The sperm does not.

The egg does not.

The embryo does.

Sofar nobody has proven anything that I have said wrong...
 
  2007-07-04 01:12:18 AM  
dottedmint:

Even though you didn't post your link, I found where ALL those quotes came from, which was the testimony (pops)of "Richard M. Doerflinger Deputy Director, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities,
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."


As Mr. Doeflinger, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities points out, "Each point can be supported by relying on statements by scientists and others who do not share our moral position on this issue."

Scientists who do not share his (and yours) moral position. So although the beginning of a human life is "from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter," (as put by Dr. Bowes from your site) there nonetheless remains a MORAL ISSUE. Furthermore, if I could quote your venerable Dr. a little more, he reminds us that "[t]his straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."

Sociological and political goals, like, stopping embryonic research when it has the potential to save lives?

Contradictions aside, there is a separation between the morality of stem cells and the BIOLOGY. No one has "proven you wrong" because no one has had to, because you haven't provided anything relevant to the question of when a human being acquires the rights which any other human being does.


The RELEVANT question therefore is when does a human possess the legal rights of any other individual? It's a question of morality and ethics, not just science.

Which leads me to repeat the questions I already asked, which you didn't answer:

Fertilization clinics "kill" thousands of embryos a year at the requests of parents. If embryos are human beings entitled to all the protections of our laws, then are these parents and these clinics committing murder?

Are mothers who have abortions "murdering" their unborn child? If you believe embryos are indeed humans then how do you reconcile the legal right for a woman to have an abortion? (If you believe a woman does have that right.)

Are embryos human beings that, somehow, have "less rights" than others in that parents have the right to exterminate them?
 
  2007-07-04 02:24:18 AM  
c7hu1hu fh746n: Next question: why does any of this matter?

QFT.

In the case of a practically answerless question like this, I'm going to side with science: that embryos are not people, and can be used in research that may cure cancer, MS or a host of debilitating diseases.
Call me immoral, dottedmint.

I don't see that we're killing people, and those cells may prove key to our survival.
 
  2007-07-04 09:55:16 AM  
C-S: "No one has "proven you wrong" because no one has had to, because you haven't provided anything relevant to the question of when a human being acquires the rights which any other human being does."

The problem is that I don't think that is the revevant question.

I'm not debating if this human being should have the same rights as you and I.

I am debating that this is a human being....human life....the beginning of life.

Rights are an abstract property that society decides (or not) to grant.

For the longest time Blacks had no rights because society decided that they were not even human.

Eventually they were granted some rights but still many rights were not granted to them.

Women also (for many years) did not have the same rights as men.

Not that long ago in history our society decided to take away the rights of an entire group of people. (japanese during WWII)

And now we have different rights for people of different ages.

Of course at one time abortion was illegal then we had a court ruling making it legal and since then we have had both state and national legislatures trying to answer your question of when the right of life should be granted.

At some point society will decide what rights should be granted to embryos and fetuses.

Odds are that these rights will change over time as society changes.

What does not change in all these cases is if we are looking at human life.

The only thing that changes is what rights society decides to grant.

What nobody has proven me wrong on is saying that this living organism that is genetically human is created at conception...

That an embryo has all the characteristics of an organism...

See....

I am debating biological facts.

You are debating abstract ideas of rights.

"[t]his straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."

Sociological and political goals, like, stopping embryonic research when it has the potential to save lives?


No. This straightforward fact (that human life begins at conception) should not be distorted to serve sociological, (allowing abortions) political, (making an issue to get votes) or economic goals (getting government funding).

You are the one distorting this straightforward fact.

It is a biological fact that human life begins at conception.

"Which leads me to repeat the questions I already asked, which you didn't answer:"

True. I did not answer those questions because I didn't want to get away from the question of when human life begins....not when that life should have rights but when it begins.

Human life begins at conception. This is a biological fact that you have not been able to disprove.

You have only argued that they should not have the same rights as you and I.

So can you tell me at what point you think human life begins.

NOT at what point you think it should have the same rights as you and I.

At what point does human life begin?

Now back to your other questions.....

"Fertilization clinics "kill" thousands of embryos a year at the requests of parents. ..."

"Are mothers who have abortions "murdering" their unborn child? ..."


I do think it is immoral for clinics to create hundreds/thousands of embryos only to destroy most of them.

Is that (or abortions) "murder"?

Generally "NO".

Murder is a legal issue....a crime.

IF it is LEGAL for them to kill the embryos that they created or for the mother to kill her unborn child then it is not murder.

"Are embryos human beings that, somehow, have "less rights" than others in that parents have the right to exterminate them?"

Basically....Yes....

Now...

When does human life begin?

Not when should they have rights....when does it begin?
 
  2007-07-04 10:00:44 AM  
Whidbey: "I'm going to side with science: that embryos are not people, and can be used in research that may cure cancer, MS or a host of debilitating diseases.
Call me immoral, dottedmint.

I don't see that we're killing people, and those cells may prove key to our survival."


1. Not all science agrees with you.
2. Adult stem cells "may cure cancer, MS or a host of debilitating diseases".
3. Yes. I call that "immoral".
4. We are not simply talking about "cells". We are talking about "living organisms that are genetically human".
 
  2007-07-04 02:54:14 PM  
dottedmint: "Are embryos human beings that, somehow, have "less rights" than others in that parents have the right to exterminate them?"

Basically....Yes...


Well why is that? If there is only one answer to what being a "human being" is, i.e. we are all created in full at the time of conception, then how is it possible for human beings as embryos to have less rights than even a minor child?

Does this bespeak some sort of inherent difference between an embryo and other forms of "humanness?" Such as a second trimester fetus, who in many states actually does have the rights of a minor, to the extent that unless a mother's life is in danger she cannot abort it?

How is an embryo a human being that can be killed by its parents, unlike even second trimester fetuses? What kind of human being is that?

Is an embryo "property?"

When does human life begin?

Well since I don't agree that human existence is defined merely by our biology, I don't really think an embryo qualifies as a person, i.e. a person who deserves the rights of any other individual or minor. Sometimes the right answer is claiming there is no answer, so my routine answer is I don't know. Maybe it's somewhere in between conception and the third trimester, or what our learned judges on the SCOTUS called "quickening." Viability is an interesting point at which it could be argued humanness begins, although the fetus looks human before that point.

If you really pressed me I'd agree with the SCOTUS's analysis in Roe. Somewhere in between the second and third trimester. (I think that's what they said, haven't read it in a while.)

I also find it funny that pro-lifers, who are largely religious, use science and biology to try and prove that embryos are "human beings" when what is behind their conception of humanity is the human soul.

How does biology prove that an embryo has a soul? If that is the criteria for "humanness," which I'm not saying it is, then how can science prove it? Just pointing out the odd bed fellows the religious right makes with science when it finds it convenient.

Is there a "philosophy" forum we can break this out into? We left the political arena about 20 posts ago...
 
  2007-07-04 02:55:01 PM  
PS - Happy 4th everyone.
 
  2007-07-04 03:39:39 PM  
C-S: "Well why is that?"

I thought I had explained that in my earlier post.

They do not have the same rights as you and I because society has not decided to grant those rights.

At some point society may decide to grant those rights.

It would have nothing to do with any change in the embryo.

It would have to do with a change in society.

That is why it is illogical to use abstract properties like "rights" to determine life.

"Viability is an interesting point at which it could be argued humanness begins, although the fetus looks human before that point."

The problem with using viability as a starting point is that viability changes.

One of the smallest babies ever born only gestated 25 or 26 weeks and was less than 9 ounces at birth. Twenty or thirty years ago that baby would not have survived but with inprovements in medical technology the viability of these premies gets younger and younger.

In another 50 years viability might be at 15 weeks...`

"I also find it funny that pro-lifers, who are largely religious, use science and biology to try and prove that embryos are "human beings" when what is behind their conception of humanity is the human soul. "

Well....

I never use religion to debate issues.

A soul is even more abstact than rights and so I never talk about souls unless I am debating religious issues.

"Well since I don't agree that human existence is defined merely by our biology, I don't really think an embryo qualifies as a person, i.e. a person who deserves the rights of any other individual or minor."

As I said before I am not asking at what point should it have the same rights as you and I.

I asked at what point does human life begin?
 
  2007-07-05 04:50:05 AM  
dottedmint: I asked at what point does human life begin?

I dunno, but mine ended with you blathering on about this. Please, for the love of all that is, drop the petri dish and let's move on.
 
  2007-07-05 01:01:08 PM  
dottedmint: I asked at what point does human life begin?

I answered you. Not conception. Other than that I don't know. I don't know is an answer.

Does it really matter?

People die everyday. People. With arms and legs and brains and families. And some of these deaths are sanctioned, like war. Innocent people die everyday in Iraq, but no one really seems to care and many consider it justified. If the only thing that matters when questioning the validity of ending life is the fact that it is life, then why do these things exist? How do you justify that?

As I said before I am not asking at what point should it have the same rights as you and I.

Well maybe you should? Seeing how this is pretty much the determinative factor in the fate of an embryo and of all people in this country.

society has not decided to grant those rights.

Why not?

I thought some rights were "inalienable?" Like the right to life?

Does this mean you think people are "granted" rights by the government and without the government they would have no rights?

Let me know when you feel like justifying Bush's commute(ment?)(ing?) of Libby, by the way.
 
  2007-07-05 03:39:07 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer: Let me know when you feel like justifying Bush's commute(ment?)(ing?) of Libby, by the way.

I'll have the "there wasn't a real crime in the first place" with the "witch hunt" sauce and a side of But Clinton, please.
 
  2007-07-05 06:46:36 PM  
ROLMAO

You guys just can't figure out when you (as a living organism) were created.

I'm beginning to think that I'm the only one who ever had any biology classes...

Maybe this will help....

www.visembryo.com

Somewhere on this spiral the life of that baby began.

Or maybe this site can help....

It gives many different stages of the embryo.....

Maybe you can point to the stage where life begins....

Link

(new window)

You'll have to click on STAGES in the upper right of the page.

I hope this helps....

I'm out of time right now but I will add more later...
 
  2007-07-05 07:21:30 PM  
Soup4Bonnie: I'll have the "there wasn't a real crime in the first place" with the "witch hunt" sauce and a side of But Clinton, please.

You must have a cast-iron stomach.

And dottedmint, I'm not going to debate your agendic philosophy of when life begins any more.

Let's change the subject, and I think you need to accept that there are some very different points of view out there other than what you grew up with...
 
  2007-07-05 08:47:23 PM  
dottedmint: I'm out of time right now but I will add more later...

Please do us all a favor and don't do that.

Let's move on.
 
  2007-07-05 11:21:19 PM  
C-S: "Why not?

I thought some rights were "inalienable?" Like the right to life?

Does this mean you think people are "granted" rights by the government and without the government they would have no rights?"


Yes.

Basically.....

There was a time when a black man could be killed for any reason. He had no rights because society had not given them to blacks. Society viewed blacks as nothing more than animals.

At this time an embryo can be killed for any reason. An embryo has no rights because society has not given them to embryos.

At some time society may change and grant embryos the right to life.

OR....perhaps at least make it harder to destroy...

And come on C-S and Whidbey....

I give you guys a nice pretty picture with all sorts of different stages of growth and all I asked was for you guys to point to a particular stage where you think that living organism was created.

Instead of simply pointing to this stage or that stage (say the beginning of the 2nd trimester) both of you basically go pouting off saying you don't want to play anymore.

It is hard to say that this organism began it's life at the beginning of the 2nd trimester when you can clearly see that for the whole 1st trimester it was growing.

Clearly if it was growing before the stage that you point to then clearly it was alive before that stage and that would mean that the stage that you point to was not when it began life.

Now.....

Somewhere on that spiral is the beginning of life for that baby in the center.

All I'm asking is that you point to the beginning of life for that baby.

For some reason I suspect that both of you will continue to run away from this because you both know where the life of that baby actually started and neither of you are willing to admit it.


www.visembryo.com

The beginning of life for that baby is somewhere in that spiral....

Where 'O where could it be??????
 
  2007-07-05 11:37:58 PM  
And I really don't see the point of this discussion, dottedmint.

It's really that simple. Sorry, man.
 
  2007-07-06 12:09:41 AM  
whidbey: And I really don't see the point of this discussion, dottedmint.

It's really that simple. Sorry, man.


PLEASE......

Don't give me that CRAPOLA.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research is a huge topic and you know it.

Those who support ESCR tell us that human life begins at some point after fertilization and that makes it OK to destroy human embryos.

As my nice little pic shows that baby in the center began it's life at fertilization as an embryo.

This is the second chance that you had to point to a stage where you think that baby began life.

Instead of actually pointing to where that baby began it's life you give me this line of bull that you don't understand the point of this discussion.

Amazing.....LOL....
 
  2007-07-06 12:44:08 AM  
It's just that I've already given my opinion on the matter, and you're insisting on beating the topic to death in a blaze of glory.
 
  2007-07-06 01:38:06 AM  
whidbey: You must have a cast-iron stomach.

...or a sacasmatron the size of Manhattan!
 
  2007-07-06 06:56:06 AM  
whidbey: It's just that I've already given my opinion on the matter, and you're insisting on beating the topic to death in a blaze of glory.

I went back and basically the only things I could find from you are:

"I'm going to side with science: that embryos are not people,"

and...

"You're trying to get us to admit that a fetus/embryo is a human being when it isn't."


Nowhere did you say at what point that baby in the center of that spiral began it's life.

Just point to the stage on that spiral that you think is the beginning of the life for that baby.

It's not that hard.....

I'll even post that picture for you again....

www.visembryo.com
 
  2007-07-06 11:09:55 AM  
dottedmint: I'll even post that picture for you again....

Dude, now you're just being obnoxious. I really don't want to argue this anymore. If you had an ounce of integrity, you would honor this request and move on.
 
  2007-07-06 02:37:54 PM  
The first of these questions is among the most controversial in our society. Some religious communities believe the embryo or fetus is a full human being from the moment of conception, since it is genetically human and has the potential for development into a human individual.15

Other traditions take a "developmental" view of personhood, believing that the early embryo or fetus only gradually becomes a full human being and thus may not be entitled to the same moral protections as it will later.16

Still others hold that while the embryo represents human life, that life may be taken for the sake of saving and preserving other lives in the future.17


Produced by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
and
Institute for Civil Society
*****************

Holy heck! People hold different opinions!

Now about Libby getting a free pass to perjure & obstruct an investigation which undoubtedly would have led back to key members of the administration...
 
  2007-07-06 03:56:02 PM  
dottedmint Since I hate repeating myself I'll just cut and paste all the times I've already said what I wanted to say:


Cleveland-Steamer: t's the moral problem you have, as obviously apparent by your post. You believe stem cells are human beings. Obviously nothing I will say can convince you otherwise, so this element of our discussion is pretty much dead in the water. Someone else can try this one out but I don't like arguing with brick walls.

^^ That was my Boobies on the subject by the way. Kind of true isn't it?


You and I have different opinions on when a human life starts. It's as simple as that, and there is no way you are going to convince me otherwise, because it's impossible for you to prove what you are saying, and it's impossible for me to prove what I am saying. That's why I have repeatedly stated this is not an argument I would like to have, with anyone, ever. This is not an argument you can logically win, as proven by your attempts so far, and it's not an argument I can logically win either.

The issue here is when human life begins. Not a "living organism"-- Human life, that unique and intangible thing philosophers debate about and religions are formed over. You believe it begins at conception, I do not, and never the twain shall these two ideas meet, but I respect what you believe and do not believe this forum is the proper place to debate it. I also think these sort of things aren't really debatable, and people just need to learn to agree to disagree about these things and try and find ways to work around them to get things done.

I believe that human life begins later. I.e., the human life which we as a society cherish and hold (at least in theory) sacred. I do not believe an embryo holds these same qualities.

"The more critical question, I think, is when that life becomes "human", and that is not a question that science will be able to answer. Human-ness is a religious, or moral, or philosophical question that is not likely to have a single agreed-upon answer." Steve J Triezenberg

If you really pressed me I'd agree with the SCOTUS's analysis in Roe. Somewhere in between the second and third trimester. (I think that's what they said, haven't read it in a while.)

Well since I don't agree that human existence is defined merely by our biology, I don't really think an embryo qualifies as a person, i.e. a person who deserves the rights of any other individual or minor. Sometimes the right answer is claiming there is no answer, so my routine answer is I don't know. Maybe it's somewhere in between conception and the third trimester, or what our learned judges on the SCOTUS called "quickening." Viability is an interesting point at which it could be argued humanness begins, although the fetus looks human before that point.


That's seven times now in six different posts. Do you get it yet?
 
  2007-07-06 04:08:41 PM  
Onto more forum-relevant topics:

Soup4Bonnie: Now about Libby getting a free pass to perjure & obstruct an investigation which undoubtedly would have led back to key members of the administration...

Since no one is coming to the defense of Bush I'll just argue with myself over this one...;)

The usual defense from the right is, as your earlier post demonstrated, Clinton's pardons.

Well, Clinton's pardons were not of top administration officials, who, in his own administration and under his own tenure, participated in felonies related to the highest reaches of national security and which possibly implicated others in the administration such as the VP and Bush himself.

Clinton's pardons were not mere months after a highly publicized trial.

Clinton's pardons were not during a war, a war which was intrinsically related to these crimes to begin with.

Clinton's pardons were not in the face of public skepticism and criticism of his administration, with polls in the low 30's.

Clinton's pardons were not during a time when the world and America itself was losing trust in the administration.

I think the worst thing though is the first point: The Bush administration was implicated in this trial, and there were connections which, for whatever reason, were not pursued. The close relationship Bush had with the facts of this trial and the defendant himself would make me think that he would think twice before commuting his sentence so quickly. What message does that send?

Bush's reasoning included the idea that the punishment was too harsh. As other current and former federal prosecutors have stated, this simply belies a lack of understanding of the federal judicial system. First time felony offenders very commonly get far, far more time than 2 1/2 years. Especially for a crime such as this one.
 
  2007-07-06 04:10:13 PM  
Owned by the filter again. Ugh.
 
  2007-07-08 12:17:11 AM  
All I'm asking is that you point to the beginning of life for that baby.

C-S: "If you really pressed me I'd agree with the SCOTUS's analysis in Roe. Somewhere in between the second and third trimester."

Fair enough....

The end of the second trimester would be around 27 or 28 weeks....

This is a picture of an embryo at about 8 weeks or 56 to 60 days

embryology.med.unsw.edu.au

And are you honestly going to try to argue that this 8 week old embryo isn't an earlier stage of life of a baby...

...that this somehow isn't human life...

...that this somehow isn't a living being???

If this is not an earlier stage of life of a newborn baby....a human life....a living being....

What exactly is it???
 
  2007-07-08 03:33:11 AM  
dottedmint: And are you honestly going to try to argue that this 8 week old embryo isn't an earlier stage of life of a baby...

Nope that's not what I am trying to argue. Sorry!
 
  2007-07-08 04:39:53 AM  
dottedmint

baby or not, it's hideous.
 
  2007-07-08 06:15:51 AM  
dottedmint: All I'm asking is that you point to the beginning of life for that baby.

Good morning, dottedmint.

You've obviously spent some time researching this, and it's just as obvious how important the topic is to you. There's certainly nothing wrong with that; I admire anyone who takes the time to learn about things rather than just posting opinion unsupported by anything other than public leanings.(I'm pointing at myself in the mirror.)

In my non-subtle way, let me see if I'm on track.

You believe that God places his hand on the embryo at the very first(conception)and it is now an entity with a soul.(human)Thus, anyone doing anything to the embryonic cells other than letting them do what they will(stem-cell research/abortion) are murderers who are playing/second guessing God.

Those on the pro-research/abortion side would say that God(if there is one) doesn't place his hand on anything until...varying degrees of time has passed, anywhere from, say, the end of the first trimester to when the entity becomes conscious of it's surroundings. Please don't ask for links on this; it's just my two cents.

Since, of course, there is no proof that the cells are already spoken for by God, this argument derails at the juncture we are at now.
 
  2007-07-08 08:29:08 AM  
Trog: You believe that God places his hand on the embryo at the very first(conception)and it is now an entity with a soul.(human)Thus, anyone doing anything to the embryonic cells other than letting them do what they will(stem-cell research/abortion) are murderers who are playing/second guessing God.

Since at no time did I mention God, I'm not sure where you came up with that accusation.

Since, of course, there is no proof that the cells are already spoken for by God, this argument derails at the juncture we are at now.

Since I am basing my comments on biology (not religion) this argument is not derailed.

When an egg is fertilized it becomes a living organism that is genetically human.

A fertilized egg is the point where you, me and everyone else in here began our lives.

Before fertilization none of us existed. After fertilization we did.

At fertilization a living being is created that will grow into a newborn baby.

Not one of these comments is based on my views of God.

They are based on biological facts.

C7: baby or not, it's hideous.

And at one point in your life that is what you looked like.


C-S: Nope that's not what I am trying to argue. Sorry!

You are arguing that society should not grant any rights to that embryo.

Rigth?

What I don't understand is Why...

Obviously it is human....

Obviously it is living....

But we should be able to kill it if we wish????

Because we want to????

And Trog...."I admire anyone who takes the time to learn about things rather than just posting opinion unsupported by anything other than public leanings.(I'm pointing at myself in the mirror.)"

You should also be pointing at a few other people in here....
 
  2007-07-08 01:03:35 PM  
"Captain...derailment complete."

"Good work, Lieutenant. Get the mop-up crew in there, and make sure Bio gets those petri dishes, pronto."

Phone rings in the background; Female sgt. picks up the phone, listens. "Captain, it's Mr. Cheney."

"Lieutenant, belay those orders. Get everybody out, double time. Looks like we're gonna nuke it from orbit."
 
  2007-07-08 01:23:48 PM  
Okay, I was being mean, throwing God at you like that. I knew it was a toss up. While some decry using embryonic cells using the secular argument that you present, Christians are paddling in the same direction, while adding accouterments like souls to the mix. I knew better than to assume your religiosity, but I guess I just couldn't help the dig.

Regardless of WHY you feel that embryonic stem cells should not be used for research, I will never agree with you that those cells are any higher in the hierarchy than a skin graft from my behind.
 
  2007-07-08 02:44:25 PM  
dottedmint: Since I am basing my comments on biology (not religion) this argument is not derailed.

Biology alone cannot answer what it means to be human. Hence your predicament.

Are we done now?
 
  2007-07-08 05:01:07 PM  
dottedmint

I know. I'm just being a jerk.
 
  2007-07-08 05:13:07 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer: Biology alone cannot answer what it means to be human. Hence your predicament.

Why couldn't I have just stuck to that. ^
 
  2007-07-08 06:44:45 PM  
C-S: "Biology alone cannot answer what it means to be human. Hence your predicament."

Actually, Yes it can.

You just don't want it to....

I can use ONLY BIOLOGY and tell you if something is a human being or not.

IF there is something that is a living organism and at the same time biologically human, then guess what???? It is human life.

Trog: "I will never agree with you that those cells are any higher in the hierarchy than a skin graft from my behind."

Well....

1. An embryo is a living organism while the skin off your @ss is not.

And

2. IF you want this...... funideas.com .....fine. I'll take the human embryo.
 
  2007-07-08 08:11:58 PM  
dottedmint: Actually, Yes it can

According to who?
 
  2007-07-08 10:37:46 PM  
C-S: "According to who?"

I could have asked the same thing of you when you said....

"Biology alone cannot answer what it means to be human."

But the only thing I need is biology to tell you if something is a human being or not.....

IF something is biologically an organism and genetically human then yes it is a human being.....

You keep wanting to say that it needs more than that but (sorry) it doesn't.....
 
  2007-07-08 11:48:04 PM  
dottedmint:
Neither is a person in a coma but they are human life.

A good friend of mine was in a coma for (IF I recall correctly) just over 6 months.

He was not conscious.

He was not sentient.

He was not self-aware.

He was not anything that you brought up in your last post.

He was a human life without possessing any of the standards that you mention.

He was still emitting brainwave patterns, that a fetus doesn't until about week 28.

dottedmint:

The biological fact is that it begins it's life at conception.

As I said before as soon as the egg is fertilized it takes on all the characteristics of a living organism that is genetically human.

Except for emitting brainwave patterns, that a fetus doesn't until about week 28. (de ja vu)
 
  2007-07-09 12:42:10 AM  
dottedmint: But the only thing I need is biology to tell you if something is a human being or not.....

Let's parse that statement out:

The only thing YOU (dottedmint) need is biology to tell ME (C-S) if something is a human being or not.

Do you see the problem in that statement?

Unfortunately, biology alone doesn't work for me and others because it has unacceptable moral and ethical implications.

And feel free to spin that statement in your next post any way you'd like, I can explain that more fully if you don't see where that is going.

IF something is biologically an organism and genetically human then yes it is a human being.....

And why should we not kill the embryo, even if it still is a human being?
 
  2007-07-09 02:17:01 AM  
dottedmint: All I'm asking is that you point to the beginning of life for that baby.

Again. You are relentless.

A fetus is not a baby. Get it straight. No more stupid pictures, no more dramatic one-liners. If you can't handle that, too bad.

And you are indeed interjecting some kind of religious angle to this derailment of a discussion because it fits all the guilt-ridden descriptions of a garden variety pro-life pamphlet.

Stop posting all these frantic rather propangandistic "biology" lessons and re-read what SoupforBonnie posted earlier. It sums up what rational people are thinking.

I really don't care when you think life begins. The truth is that fetuses are not babies. Babies are not babies until they are born.

It really irritates me that you have to have everything spelled out, dottedmint, so before you reply with another bunch of one-line opinions, also keep in mind that medical science does not recommend partial-birth or third trimester abortions.

Do we disagree? I don't care. It's propagandistic twisted science like you're spouting in here that puts Roe vs. Wade on a precipice.

And whatever you're driving at, stem cells are not human beings, either, and you are basically fighting over material that was already previously aborted legally.

Seriously, listen to what the people in here are saying instead of droning on and on like a robot.
 
  2007-07-09 02:39:41 AM  
dottedmint

Out of random curiosity, what do you think of human-animal chimeras?
 
  2007-07-09 06:34:27 AM  
Hey, now...Dotted Mint, no fair gettin' personal. Where'd you get that picture of me at my retirement party?

/That's not my best side.
 
  2007-07-09 06:58:48 AM  
Cleveland-Steamer: I think the worst thing though is the first point: The Bush administration was implicated in this trial, and there were connections which, for whatever reason, were not pursued. The close relationship Bush had with the facts of this trial and the defendant himself would make me think that he would think twice before commuting his sentence so quickly. What message does that send?

I firmly believe that this administration has gone through every law, statute and regulation pertaining to their governance with a fine tooth comb. Said stylists are definitely the best criminal legal minds available. Raygun's posse probably were the last ones to commit unethical/illegal deeds, only afterwards getting lawyers involved to cover their asses. Now, when these criminal(how quaint a term)overlords want to scratch out another portion of the rule of law, they're making sure that very little can be done about it, legalwise. Getting these guys answerable to congress will be like catching fish with a soup spoon.
 
  2007-07-09 07:20:37 AM  
Blake: "Except for emitting brainwave patterns, that a fetus doesn't until about week 28."

1. Emitting brainwave patterns are not a requirement for a living organism.

2. For the record...the brain begins to form at about four weeks and the heart begins to beat at about five weeks.

C-S: "Unfortunately, biology alone doesn't work for me and others because it has unacceptable moral and ethical implications.

And feel free to spin that statement in your next post any way you'd like, I can explain that more fully if you don't see where that is going."


I'm rather certain I don't need you to explain your stance.....

But yes I will spin your statement and point out that setting abstract standards for when life begins has unacceptable moral and ethical implications because it makes people think an embryo isn't human life.

Whidbey: "And you are indeed interjecting some kind of religious angle to this derailment of a discussion because it fits all the guilt-ridden descriptions of a garden variety pro-life pamphlet."


Where have I made even one religious statement?

I haven't.

"The truth is that fetuses are not babies."

Right????

An embryo is not a fetus.

A fetus is not a baby.

A baby is not a teenager.

A teenager is not a 50 year old person.

A 50 year old person is not a 100 year old person.

Each is a stage of human life.

"And whatever you're driving at, stem cells are not human beings, either, and you are basically fighting over material that was already previously aborted legally."


I've never said that stem cells were human beings.

It is the embryo (that is killed to gather the stem cells) that I am saying is a human being.

And at one time third trimester abortions were legal...

In many cases they no longer are....

I wish I had time to post a nice pic for you but you are in luck....

I'm out of time....
 
  2007-07-09 09:21:23 AM  
dottedmint: I wish I had time to post a nice pic for you but you are in luck....

Uh, thanks.

I'm out of time....

You are.
 
  2007-07-09 03:16:23 PM  
dottedmint:

If you don't mind me asking, why are you so sure human life begins at conception? Why isn't a gamete (an egg or a sperm) a human life? after all, it has the potential to eventually be a fully functional human and it has human DNA. The only difference between it and a zygote is time and the presence of another gamete. What magical act occurs at conception that turns a non-living thing into a living thing?

Most people think it's a gradual process, not an immediate one, and so they don't consider a zygote to be worth the same as a fully formed human life.
 
  2007-07-09 04:47:36 PM  
dottedmint: But yes I will spin your statement and point out that setting abstract standards for when life begins has unacceptable moral and ethical implications because it makes people think an embryo isn't human life.

So you agree that we are talking about a moral issue here.

Obviously, biology doesn't deal with morality. Do you see now why this whole discussion has become totally pointless?

As for unacceptable moral implications, what about absurd moral implications?

E.g., enacting a duty on mothers to actively check themselves for unplanted embryos in order to "save" all those "human beings" who are frequently washed out and "killed" during a woman's menstrual cycle.

If those are little tiny people than that simply is immoral, is it not? Doesn't every mother have a duty to protect all her little tiny babies?

Hence my question, one in a long line of other questions you don't answer:

Why is it wrong to kill a human being?

It's an obvious and easy question and it's meant to illustrate the dilemma here- you are using Biology to get at half the issue and ignoring the other half- the moral issue.

Can Biology answer that question? No.

Sure, you can sit there and say it's a human being. But what does that mean? It's a MORAL ISSUE. Biology only goes so far; biology does not explain the difference of right from wrong.

MORALLY, there are differing opinions on whether people should be allowed to harvest embryos for their stem cells. You cannot PROVE why your moral viewpoint is right or wrong, no one can. It's impossible. Which is why at the beginning of this I said I didn't want to discuss it, because it would turn into precisely this kind of useless back and forth.

So far you have only gone so far as to educate us all as to your biological understanding of the definition of human beings. You have not discussed why you think it's wrong other than simply saying "it's biologically a human being."

So what?

Seriously, so what.


I am perfectly comfortable accepting your idea that an embryo is a "genetically human living organism," but as I have so often stated, that is not the point.

The POINT is how you treat the embryo and why. Biology does not deal with morality.

Does Biology say that a "genetically human living organism" equals a Human being entitled to all the rights and privileges of you and me?

No.

Why is that?

Because it's MORAL ISSUE.
 
  2007-07-09 10:46:50 PM  
Gunther: "If you don't mind me asking, why are you so sure human life begins at conception? Why isn't a gamete (an egg or a sperm) a human life? after all, it has the potential to eventually be a fully functional human and it has human DNA."

I don't mind at all....

In fact I'm glad you did.

Neither an egg or a sperm are a living organism.

Also neither an egg or a sperm have a complete genetic makeup. They only have half of the genetic material needed to become human. You got half of your genetics (23 chromosomes) from your mother (from her egg) and half of your genetics (23 chromosomes) from your father (from his sperm).

When they (the sperm and the egg) are joined a living organism is created that is genetically complete. (46 chromosomes)

By themselves neither a sperm or an egg will become anything more than a sperm or an egg.

There is nothing magical about it.

It is simple biology.
 
  2007-07-09 11:29:25 PM  
C-S I think you are starting to get confused.

I never said that the issue of ESCR wasn't a moral issue.

In one of my last comments to you I had said....

But the only thing I need is biology to tell you if something is a human being or not.....

This statement stands.

You can point to anything you want and as long as you give me all of the biological information about that thing I can tell you what it is.

A fertilized egg is biologically a human life...human being...human....(or if you prefer)...living organism that is gentically human.

The only moral issue is what (if any) rights society shall/should grant to that embryo.

Morals are not needed to determine if something is human life.

If those are little tiny people than that simply is immoral, is it not? Doesn't every mother have a duty to protect all her little tiny babies?

Since I'm not sure how you save those embryos I don't see anything immoral about allowing natual cycles to take place.

And since women natually have miscariages all the time I don't really see anything really that much different.

Naturally having a failed pregnancy is a heck of alot more moral than intentionally creating human life only to destroy it.

"Does Biology say that a "genetically human living organism" equals a Human being entitled to all the rights and privileges of you and me?"

Of course not.

I never said it did.

I am only pointing out that what you support destroying is human life....a living organism....a human being....a human...how each of us began our lives.

I only needed biology to figure that out.

Only society can decide what rights it grants to these innocent lives.

See....In order to have an honest moral debate we need to be honest about what biologically we are talking about.

Morals (or the lack there of) have ZERO IMPACT on biological facts.

An embryo is a living organism that is genetically human.

A fertilized egg is the beginning of human life.

These are biological facts.

Morals can only determine what we do (or don't do) with these biological facts.
 
Displayed 50 of 2661 comments

First | « | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report