|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted January 11, 2007 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The discussion of abortion from a moral basis is interesting, and perhaps many people would agree on an 'ideal' solution; how it ought to be, but the practical difficulties should be considered as well.
Yes. A major problem with the classical pro-life stance, as I see it, is that it attacks the problem mostly from a moral standpoint and ignores the practical realities of life. I would wager that many pro-choice proponents are sympathetic (as I am) to the moral position that pro-life people adopt, but are realistic enough to understand that sometimes the ideal moral situation is too difficult to always be applied. It is this clash between what is ideal and what is real that makes the issue so difficult.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 12, 2007 05:56 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 17:57, 12 Jan 2007.
|
Into Perspective
I disagree with Mvassilev's opinion as well. However, I also recognize that his opinion actually represents a much larger body of persons than simply his own. He does not come here in compulsion to be a representative but the fact remains many people believe exactly as he does.
There is a book that has only just been published entitled "The God Delusion" which was written by Dawkins. I have had the opportunity to listen to one of his discussion/question/answering sessions that he recently gave at a university (I do not recall the name at this time). I found it to be very interesting and I very clearly noticed how large and popular the number of people who subscribe to this philosophy. It seemed to me a more scientific approach to life with a greater affinity for Darwinian theoretical philosophy. I did have some major concerns with his ideas but I also noted the great degree of logic and reason that he applied in his dictates.
While it appears that most people disagree with Mvassilev's opinion here at Heroes Community, the reality is quite different. I would say that more people agree with him than do with myself and the like. At least . . . that has been my experience in talking with and listening to people here in the U.S.A.
I am very concerned because of what I have learned from my history research. It seems every time nations seek to expel religion entirely from their society then catastrophy immediately follows. For example: Late 18th/Early 19th century France and Early-Mid 19th century Russia.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted January 13, 2007 01:31 AM |
|
|
Hello Consis,
It is one thing to have a certain outlook on something however it is how you represent an idea that matters. The problems that I had with his comments were that they were poorly executed. He also made some very off comments about the mentally ill that were swimming with ignorance. I know what book you are referring to and he is great.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 13, 2007 02:38 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 02:40, 13 Jan 2007.
|
Violent_Flower,
I have been intentionally refraining from posting my responses to Mvassilev's posts because I want to understand more about why so many people think that way.
I believe it is a case of belief in God (compassion) versus evolutionary (only the strong survive). I had mentioned before that I'd heard this philosophy before . . . from Hitler. As he was rising to power, some of his speeches were describing history as he saw it--that history was nothing more than the struggle of human races for survival. In effect, I think there is a connection between that philosophy and the one in which people are systemically judged by any number of characteristics, and then deemed unfit for survival within some bizarre human context. Of course I think it to be wrong as do many other people, but so many others deem it a 'fact of life'. Some say it is simple. Some people say you either 'have what it takes or you don't' in regards to your own survival.
I think that whether it be one reason presented by humans or another . . . it is inevitably and inherently flawed. I believe that no person has the right to judge another especially with regard to their naturals rights. If you ask me, I believe in God. To me . . . my God is a loving, forgiving, compassionate, and merciful God. I believe that only God has the right to judge a person. I believe that only God knows everything a person has done in his or her life. And because I believe these things, I am compelled to learn how to be more loving, forgiving, compassionate, and merciful.
All of it means that life is precious to me. It means that there is no way I can ever possibly fathom it's beauty and complexity. It means that I cannot define what it truly means to be a "person". The first step toward wisdom is to admit how little you truly know . . . as I see it.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted January 13, 2007 03:05 AM |
|
|
eh...
Godwin's Law gives this round... to mvassilev
Consis, i could argue about your beliefs that the christian god is a loving father, etc but that is not the purpose of the thread... instead i will ask you something else... do you support the death sentence?
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted January 13, 2007 03:44 AM |
|
|
I don't know about Consis but I do...
The justice system is frail in its attempts to be fair and just. I have seen the system work first hand with an uncle that was murdered in cold blood. You go into a situation such as this and you are gleaming with the prospect that his trial will be fair. Pleading that the beings that are testifying on his behalf will be accredited.
We have a justice system that locks you away for ten years for assaulting an officer with ones hand, but because he is an officer the punishment is increased. Then on the other side of the unjust coin we have pedophiles that get probation and then are set free to do their community service landscaping at the local elementary school. Not only is the initial sentence a mishap, then the incompetent staff members (probation officers, counselor’s and other appointed staff) that are to follow up with these criminals, can’t seem to do their jobs efficiently.
We have men that have been pulled off of death row (David Keaton) for being wrongfully accused. Then there are those that are not on death row and should, be as I stated with the pedophiles earlier. Even though we as humans are not on any high standing to be the judge of ones life we still have a society that needs to be caged from it self on occasion.
So all this being said I think we have flaws but I still believe in the death sentence. This is about ten other threads in itself.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted January 13, 2007 04:27 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 04:28, 13 Jan 2007.
|
Yes
I support the "death penalty" (not sentence). I have quite a bit to say about this subject. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to start a thread addressing this topic of discussion. The death penalty is a topic of discussion for an adult audience, as is the topic which Binabik has asked me to discuss about Oregon's Euthanasia laws. I'm not sure if this forum (where many children are present) is an appropriate place to discuss such a thing.
This thread is about an entirely different matter: Human Life As It Begins
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted January 13, 2007 04:33 AM |
|
|
consis...
you are right... the death penalty is a whole series of topics in and on itself... the reason i brought it up however is that, to me at least, it seems a bit hypocritical to be pro-life when it comes to adoption and pro-death when it comes to the death penalty
...all life is sacred, right?
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 13, 2007 06:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
you are right... the death penalty is a whole series of topics in and on itself... the reason i brought it up however is that, to me at least, it seems a bit hypocritical to be pro-life when it comes to adoption and pro-death when it comes to the death penalty
...all life is sacred, right?
Well I can see the distinction, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. The unborn child is brimming with potential and the murderer has already shown himself incapable of contributing positively to society. I don't necessarily see much of a problem with that logic except that, as you say, "all life is sacred" only when it benefit their position.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 13, 2007 09:28 AM |
|
|
Not even born yet.
What if the mother cant even support herself & the man left her.
What if she was raped & didnt want the child.
Some people are for Abortion unfortunately because they cant give thier child what they want.
Corribus your so smart I want you!!!!?!!!!!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 13, 2007 03:08 PM |
|
|
It is art of the subect.
Even if it's just abortion.
People dont agree with it & that is what makes it part of the topic.
Innocent babies who dont even know better & will never know because women either had no choice.
Idiotic & not smart about unprotection.
Just a cruel woman.
Either way some will say if you can support a baby then it is right to kill them while others disagree.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2007 04:39 PM |
|
|
As mentioned I am against death penalty, but abortion is somewhat different; in my opinion it's rather a deselection of life than a selection of death. You choose not to create rather than destroy which is why I think that you can't say that abortion is murder.
EDIT-by-Lith: removed off topic parts in this post and cleaned up the thread as requested by many members, the discussion about the death penalty has another place.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 07, 2007 01:09 AM |
|
|
Alternative Stem Cell Manipulation
 **copied from cnn website/edited by me**
Quote:
What if scientists could find a way to produce embryonic stem cells without having to tamper with embryos? Today, three teams of researchers said they had found a way to do just that -- but in mice. They got ordinary skin cells to act like the embryonic cells.
Embryonic stem cells are prized because they can develop into all types of tissue. So experts believe the human versions might be used for transplant therapies in people who are paralyzed or have illnesses ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's disease. But to harvest stem cells from an embryo, the embryo is destroyed, an action many people oppose.
Scientists have long hoped to find a way to reprogram ordinary body cells to act like stem cells, avoiding the use of embryos altogether. Past experiments seeking alternative routes to getting stem cells have generally involved tampering with an embryo or egg.
The new work builds on a landmark paper Yamanaka published last August. He found that by slipping four genes into mouse skin cells called fibroblasts, he could make the altered cells behave much like embryonic stem cells in lab tests.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 21, 2007 03:09 AM |
|
|
Dubya Bush vs Everyone Else
**copied from cnn website and largely edited by me**
Quote:
Vetoing a stem cell bill for the second time, President Bush signed an executive order urging scientists toward what he termed "ethically responsible" research in the field. Announcing his veto to a room full of supporters, Bush said, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line." States and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of August 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.
"President Bush won't listen to the more than 500 leading organizations who support the bill including AARP, the American Medical Association and the American Diabetes Association, just to name a few," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. "President Bush won't listen to the 80 Nobel laureates or his own director of the National Institutes of Health, who all support embryonic stem cell research. Most importantly, President Bush won't listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans who call out for stem cell research."
Democrats do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto.
Republican presidential hopefuls are split on the scope of federal involvement in embryonic stem cell research:
Senator John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have broken with Bush and the GOP's social conservatives in backing the expansion of federal funding for such research. At the Republican debate May 3, Giuliani said he supports such an expansion with limits, "as long as we're not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we're not having human cloning."
Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas oppose the expansion. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney tried to stop legislation that encouraged expanded embryonic stem cell research. His veto was overturned.
The president is "deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend lives," Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said.
Senator Hillary Clinton said if she is elected president, she will lift restrictions on stem cell research. "This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families," she said.
Former Senator John Edwards said the president "had a simple choice today: direct the full force of American scientific ingenuity towards responsible, life-saving medical research or pander to a narrow segment of his political base. With his veto, he made the wrong choice," he said in a statement.
Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on August 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence.
The order also renames the NIH's Embryonic Stem Cell Registry the Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry so that it reflects what the stem cells can do, instead of their origin. Pluripotent stem cells are ones that can give rise to any kind of cell in the body except those required to develop a fetus.
"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us," said Bush, who appeared on stage with Kaitlyne McNamara of Middletown, Connecticut, who was born with spina bifida, and is benefiting from what he called "ethical stem cell research."
Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, expressed anger and disgust at the veto and Bush's order. "His executive order directing NIH to continue pursing alternate forms of research is nothing new since NIH has already been conducting this research for the past 20 years," Tipton said.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2007 11:35 AM |
|
|
Yea, I heard a blurb on this not long before you posted it. As far as I'm concerned this is not much more than political spin. At least this one has slightly more actual information about the details, which is to say it's 85% political spin instead of the 95% spin for the blurb I heard.
The other blurb I heard simply said "Bush vetoes stem cell research bill", which says virtually nothing except Bush vetoed some bill and it had something to do with stem cells. Of course as spin it has little to do with stem cells, its purpose is to score political points.
I assume it's true that the majority of people favor stem cell research, so yea, Bush went against the grain. But I'm sure it's also true that the majority of people know very little about stem cell research except at a superficial level.
I don't claim to know much of anything about it. I mean I don't even know what the hell a stem cell is. I know it's some type of cell which has the ability to turn into a multitude of other cell types. I know stem cells can be harvested from different human tissues like embryos, umbilical cords, placenta, and some other tissues. Hmmm, in a nut shell, that pretty much sums up my knowledge on the subject.
The point is that I'm willing to bet that's probably all most people know about it. In other words, on something that's a highly technical subject, most of us don't know **** about it. This makes us highly vulnerable to the political spin put on these things. Since we can't realistically make decisions based on good knowledge and understanding, we tend to make emotional decisions which are even more vulnerable to campaigns of misinformation and the ever popular implied lie.
Am I defending Bush? No, just making a point. Am I saying there's an implied lie in the spin? I don't know if there is or not, but I think it's highly likely. The implication is that by vetoing this bill, Bush is somehow delaying medical research that could save lives.
Does anybody know if that's really true? I'm sure someone might know, or can do some quick research to find out. But from the information presented in this article, what percentage of people can knowledgeably say if this has any kind of significant adverse affect on medical research?
There are lots of possibilities why this is nothing more than misinformation that has little or no affect on medical research. Both political parties create bogus bills they know will never go through, for the sole purpose of making a political statement.
So the question is, what did this bill really do? Was it nothing more than a statement saying federal funds can be used for research using stem cells derived from embryos? If no money was allocated for it, then it's nothing more than a political statement. And if money was allocated, was it new money or money siphoned from other stem cell research, or even from completely unrelated research?
An even bigger question is what portion of research money is federal? My guess is that the vast majority of research is funded by the private sector and this bill didn't have any affect on that whatsoever.
There are lots of unknowns in this. My point is not about Bush, and it's not even specifically about stem cell research. It's about the use of spin to score points with a populace who is mostly ignorant of the subject.
I'm sure someone can enlighten me on this, but I'm just one person. What about the other 99% of the population?
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted June 21, 2007 05:22 PM |
|
|
Binabik,
Here's the simple answer:
1. A stem cell only comes from a woman's egg AFTER it has been fertilized by a man's spermatozoon.
2. Many people believe the very instant an egg is fertilized by a spermatozoon is the 'moment of conception'.
3. Many people believe the 'moment-of-conception' is the exact instant when cells inherit all natural and divine rights of a living human being.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2007 05:41 PM |
|
|
So now they're going to throw all of those embryos in the trash.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 21, 2007 06:40 PM |
|
|
|
What most people don't realize is that most of the embryos from which this research would be done end up in the trash anyway.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 09:38 AM |
|
|
It takes me a while to get around to things.
First, I know what a stem cell is from a laymen’s point of view. When I said I didn't know what a stem cell was, I meant from a scientific point of view. My entire point about politicization is that the subject is extremely scientific and well beyond the understanding of the average person. As a result we are highly vulnerable to political manipulation. The only thing we know is what we are told....and due to the nature of the subject we are told an oversimplified version which likely leaves out the "scientific details" that may not lend support for the particular bias of those telling the story.
When I portrayed myself as ignorant I was also portraying the average Joe who is wholly unqualified to make political decisions based on real understanding and knowledge. For the record I've known about stem cells since 1994 when I consulted at this company. (although I didn't work on that particular product)
There was a lot of excitement about this new "miracle of medicine". The excitement came from the medical community of course. But the excitement also came from another group, the finance people. Any "miracle of medicine" is going to be highly profitable right? I don't mean to paint investors as some evil of society taking advantage of people's illnesses. On the contrary, it's the investors who drive the research and therefore the cures. Any kind of scientific research is extremely expensive and if we relied on governments to pay for it most of the labs would probably be shut down.
Which brings me back to my last post. In it I questioned where the research money came from. I still don't know how much money we are talking about or where it comes from. But I've started the digging process.
After a couple hours my first reaction was to throw my hands in the air and give up. To say the average person is unable to understand this stuff is a major understatement...and I'm not talking about the scientific aspect. I was just hoping to get some basic idea at the "block diagram" level. For example how much money are we talking about? Approximately how is this money allocated between the various types of stem cell research? Is federal money a significant source of funding? (I'd be very surprised if it was)
And I think the biggest question is how does this tie in with all the thousands of other medical research projects going on? Even without stem cells there are probably thousands of very promising projects going on. Assuming there is a finite amount of research money, is this a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
But finite does not mean fixed. With proper marketing to the public, or sometimes simply due to great need, the public reluctance to spend huge sums of money breaks down and Joe and Jane Public open their purses. This implies public funding, but that's not necessarily true. I'm sure pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies also have their fingers on the pulse of Joe and Jane Public. It's not always a direct one-to-one relationship, but ultimately all funding must be at the approval of Joe and Jane, whether that is approval for increased taxes, increased insurance premiums, or any other source.
So the first things I realize during my research are that this issue is extremely complex and I think the best we can do is follow a single branch and see where it goes.
The second thing is that this appears to be really big business. I haven't followed through with it yet, but there even appears to be stem cell "brokers" doing very good business. *IF* true, these guys don't do **** to further research. They only act as middlemen taking a cut of the action by brokering a commodity. OK, without knowing details, that's fair. After all, different industries use different distribution channels. (some industries use scouts for the supply chain and some use caravans ) The point is that the existence of brokers (who appear to be quite numerous and competitive) indicates just how big this industry really is.
So now I'm curious. What is the motivation behind the stem cell controversy? Medical issues? Morale issues? Political issues? Big money? My guess is all of the above.
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2007 10:18 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 10:51, 29 Jun 2007.
|
Yep, a small amount of additional research shows there are definitely stem cell brokers.
But what appears to be an even bigger business is the collection and storage of cord blood stem cells. Cord blood refers to the umbilical cord. The idea is that when a child is born, they extract stem cells from the umbilical cord and use a service to store them cryogenically (like the link in my last post). These stem cells are fully compatible with the child and will dramatically decrease the possibility of rejection of transplanted organs or other tissues if needed later in life.
Example from one company (I'm omitting the sales pitch)
Processing, courier shipping, and first year storage brings total fee to $1765.
Another one
From the above site:
Stem cells are everywhere in the news today. Unfortunately, too much attention is put on the ethical debate over the use of embryonic stem cells in research today. NeoCells doesn’t involve itself in this controversial debate because it is unnecessary. Recent studies have shown that adult stem cells have been more successful in therapeutic trials than embryonic stem cells and more importantly, adult stem cells do not increase the risk of tumor growth.
Today there are over 70 diseases and disorders that are either cured or ameliorated by the use of stem cell therapy or transplants.
Note: Their reference to tumor growth refers to the fact that some uses of stem cells carry a risk of tumor growth.
From Wikipedia: After 20 years of research, there are no approved treatments or human trials using embryonic stem cells. Their tendency to produce tumors and malignant carcinomas, cause transplant rejection, and form the wrong kinds of cells are just a few of the hurdles that embryonic stem cell researchers have been unable to overcome.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
