# Why are people against stem cell research



## applejuice (Jul 27, 2011)

Research with stem cells
Scientists and researchers are interested in stem cells for several reasons. Although stem cells do not serve any one function, many have the capacity to serve any function after they are instructed to specialize. Every cell in the body, for example, is derived from first few stem cells formed in the early stages of embryological development. Therefore, stem cells extracted from embryos can be induced to become any desired cell type. This property makes stem cells powerful enough to regenerate damaged tissue under the right conditions

Organ and tissue regeneration
Tissue regeneration is probably the most important possible application of stem cell research. Currently, organs must be donated and transplanted, but the demand for organs far exceeds supply. Stem cells could potentially be used to grow a particular type of tissue or organ if directed to differentiate in a certain way. Stem cells that lie just beneath the skin, for example, have been used to engineer new skin tissue that can be grafted on to burn victims. 



http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/stem_cell/




Is this issue only about abortion or is there another piece of the pie to why people reject the idea of stem cell research?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 27, 2011)

Most people who are against stem cell research are really against embryonic stem cell research....stem cell research is fine...just don't kill babies to get them.  There are many other sources.


----------



## applejuice (Jul 27, 2011)




----------



## bad0351 (Jul 27, 2011)

I would like to have one example of a baby being killed to extract stem cells.....

The government would rather spend millions researching the sex life of gnats in Arizona than tangle with the religeous right and actually help a scientist find a cure for cancer.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 27, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I would like to have one example of a baby being killed to extract stem cells.....
> 
> The government would rather spend millions researching the sex life of gnats in Arizona than tangle with the religeous right and actually help a scientist find a cure for cancer.




When people get in vitro fertilization, many eggs are often fertilized and stored; to be used later if the procedure doesn't work the first, second time etc.  These "extras" are sometimes used for research or simply disposed of.  

I don't have a problem with either.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 27, 2011)

applejuice said:


> Research with stem cells
> Scientists and researchers are interested in stem cells for several reasons. Although stem cells do not serve any one function, many have the capacity to serve any function after they are instructed to specialize. Every cell in the body, for example, is derived from first few stem cells formed in the early stages of embryological development. Therefore, stem cells extracted from embryos can be induced to become any desired cell type. This property makes stem cells powerful enough to regenerate damaged tissue under the right conditions
> 
> Organ and tissue regeneration
> ...



Actually they are not against it......The vast majority of Americans are FOR the use of embryonic stem cell research, and rightly so.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 27, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Actually they are not against it......The vast majority of Americans are FOR the use of embryonic stem cell research, and rightly so.



You may be right, but do you have a source?

When we had our baby they asked us if we wanted to harvest cord blood for stem cells (for her), not to be used as research or for others. $1500 was the price.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 28, 2011)

I do and I will find it for you and post.....


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Most people who are against stem cell research are really against embryonic stem cell research....stem cell research is fine...just don't kill babies to get them.  There are many other sources.



This.



bad0351 said:


> I would like to have one example of a baby being killed to extract stem cells......



If you don't believe that abortion is killing a baby, then your example might be hard to find.


----------



## pnome (Jul 28, 2011)

It all comes down to the same thing in the end.

When do human rights begin?  Conception, or some arbitrary time after that?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 28, 2011)

I watching something on tv last night with some in vitro in it. They harvested 67 eggs and attempted to fertilize half of them. Out of some 20 that got fertlized they chose to plant 3 of them. She ended up with two babies, whichever kind of twins that would be. I would assume the rest are disposed of in some way.. even after they have started developin their vasculatory system. 

I'm not personally very pro-choice, but is this the same as abortion to the pro-lifers?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 28, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I watching something on tv last night with some in vitro in it. They harvested 67 eggs and attempted to fertilize half of them. Out of some 20 that got fertlized they chose to plant 3 of them. She ended up with two babies, whichever kind of twins that would be. I would assume the rest are disposed of in some way.. even after they have started developin their vasculatory system.
> 
> I'm not personally very pro-choice, but is this the same as abortion to the pro-lifers?



It depends.  And as to why I say that is because of when one determines life begins.

Does it happen at the fertilization of the egg?  Or does it occur at the time the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus of the woman.

If you believe that it occurs with the fertilization of the egg, then you've got abortion when you dispose of fertilized eggs.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 28, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I do and I will find it for you and post.....



Here are the results of a harris poll that was conducted and it continues to grow.

http://news.yahoo.com/most-americans-back-embryonic-stem-cell-research-poll.html


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 28, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe that abortion is killing a baby, then your example might be hard to find.



I absolutly do NOT believe abortion is anything more than a medical procedure.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 28, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Here are the results of a harris poll that was conducted and it continues to grow.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/most-americans-back-embryonic-stem-cell-research-poll.html



Guess I'm part of the 28% then.



bad0351 said:


> I absolutly do NOT believe abortion is anything more than a medical procedure.



So...like I said before, it would be difficult for anyone to show an example of killing a baby (based on your definition of a baby) for embryonic stem cell research.


So let me ask you this...when does life begin?  When does a fetus get it's basic civil rights?


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 28, 2011)

"So...like I said before, it would be difficult for anyone to show an example of killing a baby (based on your definition of a baby) for embryonic stem cell research."

Not difficult....impossible.

Life begins when a baby is born and takes it's first breath.....in my opinion.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 28, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> "So...like I said before, it would be difficult for anyone to show an example of killing a baby (based on your definition of a baby) for embryonic stem cell research."
> 
> Not difficult....impossible.
> 
> Life begins when a baby is born and takes it's first breath.....in my opinion.




So...as long as you exterminate the fetus before it takes its first breath, you're fine with it?

Even if that fetus is far enough along to sustain life on its own?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 28, 2011)

Also...to add...I believe life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg.  I've contemplated the fertilized egg having been implanted on the uterus wall, but am more and more leaning towards the fertilized egg is life as it starts to grow and divide at that time.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 28, 2011)

The OP was about embryonic stem cell research....Yes, I'm fine with those cells being used in medical research to find cures for these awful diseases.
I have no morality issues with that at all, and as far as abortion goes, I really am not a fan of it but a womans right to choose what is best for her own body should be her buisness and hers alone.
No one should be able to be prosecuted for something she alone chooses is best for her or her yet unborn baby.
Up to and including the 3rd trimester if in fact the life of the mother is in jeapardy.

And I take umbridge with your term "exterminate"....it's a medical procedure, not a murder or extermination.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 28, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> And I take umbridge with your term "exterminate"....it's a medical procedure, not a murder or extermination.



This is straight out of _1984_.  It's like Janet Napolitano saying they're not "terrorist acts".  They're "man-caused disasters".




bad0351 said:


> ... I really am not a fan of it ...



Why not?  It's just a medical procedure, after all.


----------



## TTom (Jul 28, 2011)

Not a fan of more than a few medical procedures. Amputation anyone a big fan of that?


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 28, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> This is straight out of _1984_.  It's like Janet Napolitano saying they're not "terrorist acts".  They're "man-caused disasters".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How so?   An abortion is a medical procedure....nothing more nothing less....If not then what is it in your opinion?


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 28, 2011)

TTom said:


> Not a fan of more than a few medical procedures. Amputation anyone a big fan of that?



Not a fan of amputation??
Maybe not until you need one to save your life right?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 28, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> How so?   An abortion is a medical procedure....nothing more nothing less....If not then what is it in your opinion?



Infanticide

Now, I'll repeat my question:  if it's just a medical procedure, why aren't you a fan of it?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 28, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Infanticide
> 
> Now, I'll repeat my question:  if it's just a medical procedure, why aren't you a fan of it?



But cf...extermination sounds so much worse than "medical procedure."

Undocumented citizens sounds so much better than illegal aliens.  

Synergies sound so much better than layoffs.

Call it whatever you want...it doesn't change what it is.  It is taking a living and growing fetus and killing it.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Infanticide
> 
> Now, I'll repeat my question:  if it's just a medical procedure, why aren't you a fan of it?



As you say ...we don't need to be a fan of something but when the situation calls for abortion I'm all for it.
The life of a mother that is already here is far more important than cell .


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> But cf...extermination sounds so much worse than "medical procedure."
> 
> Undocumented citizens sounds so much better than illegal aliens.
> 
> ...



Sounds pretty c lose minded and I just don't see it that way.....Its rediculous to say its a killing.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2011)

1. It is no different than what God did with Jesus. (using it as a guarantee for someone to get to heaven). What is the difference of taking a fetus or a 33yr old man? Each is equally a sacrifice for a cause. A means to and end.

2. I am starting to really like the Predestined cop-out. No matter what happens to the fetus, it was meant to happen. No matter what your personal stance is, sleep well knowing that it is OK with God, he has willed it to be eons ago.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> The OP was about embryonic stem cell research....Yes, I'm fine with those cells being used in medical research to find cures for these awful diseases.
> I have no morality issues with that at all, and as far as abortion goes, I really am not a fan of it but a womans right to choose what is best for her own body should be her buisness and hers alone.
> No one should be able to be prosecuted for something she alone chooses is best for her or her yet unborn baby.
> Up to and including the 3rd trimester if in fact the life of the mother is in jeapardy.
> ...



If I take you to a hospital and lay you on a gurney, then I get a doctor to shoot you up with poision from a needle, is that murder or a medical procedure?

Just because a doctor does it in a medical room doesn't make it "just a medical procedure"


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If I take you to a hospital and lay you on a gurney, then I get a doctor to shoot you up with poision from a needle, is that murder or a medical procedure?
> 
> Just because a doctor does it in a medical room doesn't make it "just a medical procedure"



If you were God( because all this nonsense is hypothetical anyway) then the Doctor would be well within his rights to do it. You getting the doctor to do it would be your will and perfectly fine. It would be neither murder or medical to believers of you, just your predetermined will to get Gurney Man into heaven.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If you were God( because all this nonsense is hypothetical anyway) then the Doctor would be well within his rights to do it. You getting the doctor to do it would be your will and perfectly fine. It would be neither murder or medical to believers of you, just your predetermined will to get Gurney Man into heaven.



Well I'm not God??


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> As you say ...we don't need to be a fan of something but when the situation calls for abortion I'm all for it.
> The life of a mother that is already here is far more important than cell .



We're not talking about when abortion should be okay or not.  We're talking about taking stem cells from aborted babies...or test tube babies that aren't going to be used.



bad0351 said:


> Sounds pretty c lose minded and I just don't see it that way.....Its rediculous to say its a killing.



Okay.  What do you call it when you have a living cell or group of cells and you stop them from growing/continuing to grow and put them in a state to where they start to decompose?



bullethead said:


> 1. It is no different than what God did with Jesus. (using it as a guarantee for someone to get to heaven). What is the difference of taking a fetus or a 33yr old man? Each is equally a sacrifice for a cause. A means to and end.
> 
> 2. I am starting to really like the Predestined cop-out. No matter what happens to the fetus, it was meant to happen. No matter what your personal stance is, sleep well knowing that it is OK with God, he has willed it to be eons ago.



As I said in the other thread, predestination is not a "let go and let God" attitude.  You have no understanding of the word.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Well I'm not God??



Right and your not taking anyone into a hospital and telling a doctor to inject them with poison..............soooooooooo, whats your point?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2011)

RJ, it never ceases to amaze me how I/we have no understanding of the world and Gods thoughts and will, but ALL the believers see it so clearly. It is funny that I used to think that way when i did believe, then I realized what pile that was.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If I take you to a hospital and lay you on a gurney, then I get a doctor to shoot you up with poision from a needle, is that murder or a medical procedure?
> 
> Just because a doctor does it in a medical room doesn't make it "just a medical procedure"



I am confused .......are we talking about murder or abortion?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Undocumented citizens sounds so much better than illegal aliens.
> 
> Synergies sound so much better than layoffs.



Good ones.  I hadn't thought of those.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> RJ, it never ceases to amaze me how I/we have no understanding of the world and Gods thoughts and will, but ALL the believers see it so clearly. It is funny that I used to think that way when i did believe, then I realized what pile that was.



If you realized it was a pile, you never believed.

I don't know all of God's thoughts and I don't always know His will.  I do have His Word and talk with him daily.

If you never hang out with your friend, you'll never get to know him.  Why is it hard for you to understand that you'll never get to know who God is if you don't spend time with him?



bad0351 said:


> I am confused .......are we talking about murder or abortion?



Aren't they the same thing?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> As you say ...we don't need to be a fan of something but when the situation calls for abortion I'm all for it.



I didn't say anything like that, and you still didn't answer the question.

So, for the third time:  why aren't you a fan of it?


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I didn't say anything like that, and you still didn't answer the question.
> 
> So, for the third time:  why aren't you a fan of it?



I'm not a fan because its sad for the mom but necessary...


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> As I said in the other thread, predestination is not a "let go and let God" attitude.  You have no understanding of the word.



Please then give us a source to the correct one.  Every source I look at confirms my "fore ordained" ideal, and highlights your lack of understaning of what that means.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> As I said in the other thread, predestination is not a "let go and let God" attitude.  You have no understanding of the word.



The "head banging" cracks me up.




> Its rediculous to say its a killing



An unborn fetus matches any biological definition of life. Whether you agree with the medical procedure or not, you are killing a human life.



> An abortion is a medical procedure....nothing more nothing less



...which ends a human life.  A newborn baby is no more independant than an unborn baby.  Each needs assistance to live.  I do not understand why breathing changes the dependant nature, or makes it any more viable.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I am confused .......are we talking about murder or abortion?



The hypothetical situation I gave is on the same lines as an abortion, I imagine you would call the situation I gave murder, but you call an abortion a "medical procedure".


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I'm not a fan because its sad for the mom but necessary...



Why would the mother be sad?  As you said, it's just a cell.  Would the mother be sad if she had a mole removed?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> An unborn fetus matches any biological definition of life. Whether you agree with the medical procedure or not, you are killing a human life.



A single cell matches the biological definition of life but I doubt you think you are committing murder every time you take a shower.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> I doubt you think you are committing murder every time you take a shower.



That single cell is part of a living system.  If I killed the entire system in the shower, it would change the entire scenario.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

The point JB is that if you want to go with the biological definition of life the killing of a single cell is killing life too.

If you want to add a further distinction like you have then the only question is where you draw the line. I don't think most people would consider killing a single cell in the form of a fertilized egg as morally equivalent to killing a five year old. Life is full of grey areas and this is one of them.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> Life is full of grey areas and this is one of them.



I absolutely agree.



> killing of a single cell is killing life too



Not a human life.  In many biological systems, a single cell does not equal alive.  If I cut off my hand, I have killed many cells, but not a human life.  



> I don't think most people would consider killing a single cell in the form of a fertilized egg as morally equivalent to killing a five year old



Sure.  But, as you and I both know, morals are relevant.  A human life is not.  It is either alive or dead.  Is that fertilized egg a living human system?  If so, we have to question when we assign value to that life, and why?  I believe conception because I see no logical case otherwise.

.....But, abortion is one of those areas where nobody ever changes their mind.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> If you never hang out with your friend, you'll never get to know him.  Why is it hard for you to understand that you'll never get to know who God is if you don't spend time with him?



I know I feel this way, and I would venture to say that most who did believe and now don't feel the same way..

We grew up, grew out of our indoctrination and realized that it wasn't ok to act like a child with an imaginary friend or feel like drop dead Fred was there for us to talk to as adults.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  But, as you and I both know, morals are relevant.  A human life is not.  It is either alive or dead.  Is that fertilized egg a living human system?



I think the most you could say is that it has the potential to become a human system. It's no more viable on it's own than a blood cell and as far as we can tell from a biological perspective, no more coherent or capable of consciousness.






JB0704 said:


> If so, we have to question when we assign value to that life, and why?  I believe conception because I see no logical case otherwise.
> 
> .....But, abortion is one of those areas where nobody ever changes their mind.



I changed mine. 

For me the logical case is that killing the fertilized egg and killing a child or even a premature baby are not morally equivalent. If someone forced me to choose between killing a 5 year old child and a petri dish full of fertilized eggs for me I would have no problem at all deciding between the two.

Where do I think the cutoff point should be between the two? As I said before it's a grey area. You have to draw the line at some point even if that line is at birth. I wouldn't draw it at conception though.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I changed mine.



Did that mind change happen at the same time or shortly after another mind change? If they would "never" change their mind about that, probably not this either. Until the other time came at least.

I've always been in the middle on this myself. Which is another topic I guess.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Why would the mother be sad?  As you said, it's just a cell.  Would the mother be sad if she had a mole removed?


You seem like an intelligent person so I can't understand why you would ask such a question .....


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> I think the most you could say is that it has the potential to become a human system. It's no more viable on it's own than a blood cell and as far as we can tell from a biological perspective, no more coherent or capable of consciousness.



There are many humans who are not independant.  Many babies are born without an ability to breath.  But, with proper medication and attention, they will grow and develop into fun-loving kids.  For that matter, a newborn baby is not viable on it's own.  It requires assistance to live.  



> I changed mine.



Ok.  I was wrong.  Some people do change their minds about abortion. 



> If someone forced me to choose between killing a 5 year old child and a petri dish full of fertilized eggs for me I would have no problem at all deciding between the two



But then you are introducing the extra factor of force.  If somebody asked me to choose between killing a 5 year old and my ex-mother in law, well, I think you know what the answer is there also.  Without the forced decision I wouldn't choose to kill either.



> Where do I think the cutoff point should be between the two? As I said before it's a grey area



As I said before, I agree.  But.....



> Did that mind change happen at the same time or shortly after another mind change



......it's got nothing to do with religion.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> But then you are introducing the extra factor of force.  If somebody asked me to choose between killing a 5 year old and my ex-mother in law, well, I think you know what the answer is there also.  *Without the forced decision I wouldn't choose to kill either.*



Great point!


----------



## applejuice (Jul 29, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> We grew up, grew out of our indoctrination and realized that it wasn't ok to act like a child with an imaginary friend or feel like drop dead Fred was there for us to talk to as adults.






.


----------



## applejuice (Jul 29, 2011)

If using embryonic stem cells will find a cure for diabetes, lukemia, heart disease then it needs to be funded.

There is no argument to holding this society back from science and the future. 

Roe v Wade already decided that


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> But then you are introducing the extra factor of force.  If somebody asked me to choose between killing a 5 year old and my ex-mother in law, well, I think you know what the answer is there also.  Without the forced decision I wouldn't choose to kill either.



It's a mental exercise to get you to examine the morality of each alternative. Do you find any difference in the morality of killing your ex-mother in law and a 5 year old? It's not about what you would choose but the morality of each choice both on its own and in relation to the other.

Now consider that by producing those fertilized eggs and then harvesting/killing them after they have grown a bit we can save someone's life. No force is involved but the decision is there to be made.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The "head banging" cracks me up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like it...the head banging.  I feel like I answer the same question over and over and it goes no where.

But...back on topic...you and I agree on this subject



TripleXBullies said:


> We grew up, grew out of our indoctrination and realized that it wasn't ok to act like a child with an imaginary friend or feel like drop dead Fred was there for us to talk to as adults.



Or do you just ignore His presence?

What is inside your head that keeps telling you to search for truth?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

applejuice said:


> If using embryonic stem cells will find a cure for diabetes, lukemia, heart disease then it needs to be funded.
> 
> There is no argument to holding this society back from science and the future.
> 
> Roe v Wade already decided that



Using or not using embryonic stem cells is not holding science back.  Stem cells can be harvested in other ways....sure, more expensive....but I guess you've been able to put a price on human life.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 29, 2011)

Mockery of the Lord will not be tolerated on any part of this website.  Ya`ll who are doin` it know who you are.  Don`t push it. If you can`t make your point without that, it will be best not to post.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> Roe v Wade already decided that



Roe V Wade only decided that we have a constitutional right to privacy, and an abortion was included within that realm.



> Do you find any difference in the morality of killing your ex-mother in law and a 5 year old? It's not about what you would choose but the morality of each choice both on its own and in relation to the other.



Independently of each other, no.  If weighed against each other, yes. 

You are making an emotional argument.  I will respond with a similar one:

I had a debate in Philosophy class once when the professor asked if we would torture a terrorist's child if that was the only way to get information which would save a city.  If you look at the big picture, one child's sufferring (the embryo in the petri dish) might be a small price to pay for millions of lives (the dieing child).  Many in the class claimed it was morally justifiable. 

Just like in your scenario where killing an embryo in a petri dish may save lives, you have to commit an act which is not (according to my system, not yours) morrally justifiable on its own.


But, morals are always grey areas.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> If you realized it was a pile, you never believed.


I am impressed that you know what and how I lived my life for 20 years.



rjcruiser said:


> I don't know all of God's thoughts and I don't always know His will.  I do have His Word and talk with him daily.


Daily talks with answers??




rjcruiser said:


> If you never hang out with your friend, you'll never get to know him.  Why is it hard for you to understand that you'll never get to know who God is if you don't spend time with him.



I do not have to eat the whole cow to know I'm eating beef. 20 years with an imaginary friend was all I needed. I have moved on.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> You seem like an intelligent person so I can't understand why you would ask such a question .....



If it's a baby, that's reason enough for the mother to be sad and for you to not be a fan.  If, however, it's just some cells or a lump of tissue, there's no reason for sadness.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I am impressed that you know what and how I lived my life for 20 years.



Am I wrong?  Did you truly have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?  Did you go to church to please Him? or to please your parents and your girlfriend?



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> Daily talks with answers??



Everyday.



			
				bullethead said:
			
		

> I do not have to eat the whole cow to know I'm eating beef. 20 years with an imaginary friend was all I needed. I have moved on.



If he was imaginary for 20 years, you never knew Him.  Like I said before, you'll never have a friend that you don't want to get to know.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Independently of each other, no.  If weighed against each other, yes.



I would have answered differently.




JB0704 said:


> You are making an emotional argument.  I will respond with a similar one:
> 
> I had a debate in Philosophy class once when the professor asked if we would torture a terrorist's child if that was the only way to get information which would save a city.  If you look at the big picture, one child's sufferring (the embryo in the petri dish) might be a small price to pay for millions of lives (the dieing child).  Many in the class claimed it was morally justifiable.
> 
> ...



"Not morally justifiable on it's own"

Relative to the killing or saving the life of a living breathing human I'd have no problem saying it is justified.

On it's own? I've never seen anyone proposing that this be done for no reason at all. What would be the point? It's definitely not something that I think someone should be punished for doing.

The scenario from your class I would answer differently about the action taken on it's own. So for me at least, it's an apples and oranges comparison.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Am I wrong?  Did you truly have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?  Did you go to church to please Him? or to please your parents and your girlfriend?



SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WRONG! I went to Church without my parents! I went for me to know God as best as I could.









rjcruiser said:


> If he was imaginary for 20 years, you never knew Him.  Like I said before, you'll never have a friend that you don't want to get to know.


I realized he was imaginary after those 20 years.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> If it's a baby, that's reason enough for the mother to be sad and for you to not be a fan.  If, however, it's just some cells or a lump of tissue, there's no reason for sadness.



I already told you how we differ on when life begins.....I don't see a baby in a petry dish


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> The scenario from your class I would answer differently about the action taken on it's own. So for me at least, it's an apples and oranges comparison



Could you clarify how you would answer differently.  I think I get what you are saying but want to be sure before I respond.  



> On it's own? I've never seen anyone proposing that this be done for no reason at all. What would be the point?



There would be no point.  But would it be immoral if they did?  That is the point.



> It's definitely not something that I think someone should be punished for doing



Well, we really have no basis for anything here.  You have a system and I have a system.



> Relative to the killing or saving the life of a living breathing human I'd have no problem saying it is justified



Ok. So we disagree.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Could you clarify how you would answer differently.  I think I get what you are saying but want to be sure before I respond.



The two actions on their own are killing fertilized eggs in the one case and killing a terrorists child in the other. I see no moral equivalence between the two at all. One is in and of itself immoral, the other isn't.




JB0704 said:


> Ok. So we disagree.



Let me adjust the original scenario I painted. Instead of being forced to kill either the child or the petri dish you are told that the child is terminally ill and can be saved by killing the petri dish. Would you do it?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

First, all of this hinges on whether or not the embryos are viable.  Are we making that assumption?



> The two actions on their own are killing fertilized eggs in the one case and killing a terrorists child in the other. I see no moral equivalence between the two at all. One is in and of itself immoral, the other isn't.



Ok. It was torturing the child, not killing.  The point was that it is an immoral act.  If you do not consider killing a petri dish full of fertilized eggs an immoral act independent of any other factors, then I see your point, and we really have no basis for debate.  I just disagree if the petri dish full of embryos are viable.  They could be playing baseball in five years.



> Instead of being forced to kill either the child or the petri dish you are told that the child is terminally ill and can be saved by killing the petri dish. Would you do it?



We all assign value to individual life.  We mourn the death of children but celebrate, as a nation, the death of terrorists.  So nobody can claim that all life is equal.  

Your scenario: I probably would assign a greater value to the the child, any rational human should.  Does that mean I believe it is moral to create human life to destroy it.  No.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> First, all of this hinges on whether or not the embryos are viable.  Are we making that assumption?



Eh I don't think I want to make any assumption there because then we get into what viable means and so on.





JB0704 said:


> Ok. It was torturing the child, not killing.  The point was that it is an immoral act.  If you do not consider killing a petri dish full of fertilized eggs an immoral act independent of any other factors, then I see your point, and we really have no basis for debate.  I just disagree if the petri dish full of embryos are viable.  They could be playing baseball in five years.



A sperm and an egg could be playing baseball in five years too.





JB0704 said:


> We all assign value to individual life.  We mourn the death of children but celebrate, as a nation, the death of terrorists.  So nobody can claim that all life is equal.
> 
> Your scenario: I probably would assign a greater value to the the child, any rational human should.  Does that mean I believe it is moral to create human life to destroy it.  No.



I think where we differ is in our definition of human life.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

Let me ask this, what is it that differentiates a human from a collection or organs or a mass of cells?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> A sperm and an egg could be playing baseball in five years too



I define neither as human life.  And.....



> I think where we differ is in our definition of human life



X2

I think that is why this topic is so difficult to debate.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> Let me ask this, what is it that differentiates a human from a collection or organs or a mass of cells



I think this is a trap, but I will play along.....

Without diggin up sources (I will if I must, but would prefer to go with what I think I remember reading somewhere): a human is a system of cells and organs working together to form a single organism.  Much like a leaf is not a tree or a tail is not a dog.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I think this is a trap, but I will play along.....
> 
> Without diggin up sources (I will if I must, but would prefer to go with what I think I remember reading somewhere): a human is a system of cells and organs working together to form a single organism.  Much like a leaf is not a tree or a tail is not a dog.



Well I did have something specific in mind when I asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

A baby that developed without a brain. Is that a human life? I would liken it to the leaf or the tail, maybe even the whole dog absent the head. It has all the makings of a human life and the organs may even be living for a time but without a brain I'd say we are looking at a collection of organs or a mass of cells, not a human life. It's our brains, our consciousness, our ability think and feel, to take in information and process it at least to some degree that makes us human. A brain dead body on life support is missing the key ingredient that separates living humans from a mass of living human tissue.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> It's our brains, our consciousness, our ability think and feel, to take in information and process it at least to some degree that makes us human



A heart beats 18 days after conception.  I cant remember when the spinal cord begins to deveop, I think within the first two weeks, but at that point a nervous system is in place.  An unborn baby is comforted by its mother's voice.  So, at very early stages in development all of the characteristics you state are in place to one extent or another, and none of them are fully deveoped at birth.  

We would have a difficult time determining when each of these characteristics are developed enough to consider the unborn baby human, which is why I draw the line at conception because it is the most black and white.  It just seems less arbitrary.



> A brain dead body on life support is missing the key ingredient that separates living humans from a mass of living human tissue



I don't entirely disagree.  But I don't think a conceived human fits well into that category most cases.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> A heart beats 18 days after conception.  I cant remember when the spinal cord begins to deveop, I think within the first two weeks, but at that point a nervous system is in place.  An unborn baby is comforted by its mother's voice.  So, at very early stages in development all of the characteristics you state are in place to one extent or another, and none of them are fully deveoped at birth.
> 
> We would have a difficult time determining when each of these characteristics are developed enough to consider the unborn baby human, which is why I draw the line at conception because it is the most black and white.  It just seems less arbitrary.



Yep it's certainly a grey area. I'm drawing analogies at the extreme endpoints of conception and childhood because it starts getting more murky as you move toward the middle of those two points. I'm not intimately familiar with fetal development so can't say where that arbitrary line should be but I've shown why I don't think it should be at or near conception.

As a man I don't really have much of a dog in this fight. I think it is a good example that real life issues don't fit neatly into the "objective morality" that theists like to claim. Sometimes you have to actually think and thinking can be hard.




JB0704 said:


> I don't entirely disagree.  But I don't think a conceived human fits well into that category most cases.



Why not? There is no brain at all at conception much less any other organs. And all the other organs could fully develop but without a brain I wouldn't call it a human life.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yep it's certainly a grey area. I'm drawing analogies at the extreme endpoints of conception and childhood because it starts getting more murky as you move toward the middle of those two points. I'm not intimately familiar with fetal development so can't say where that arbitrary line should be but I've shown why I don't think it should be at or near conception.
> 
> As a man I don't really have much of a dog in this fight. I think it is a good example that real life issues don't fit neatly into the "objective morality" that theists like to claim. Sometimes you have to actually think and thinking can be hard.
> 
> ...



I think the major difference is that at conception, the cells are forming a human...and potential to grow into a full human.

A person who is brain dead has no ability to regain that brain.  Hence...why it isn't murder.

But I will say, my thoughts on pulling the plug...not sure about them.  I pray I never have to make that decision.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I already told you how we differ on when life begins.....



Yes:

"Life begins when a baby is born and takes it's first breath ..."

I don't even think an abortionist would agree with that.




bad0351 said:


> I don't see a baby in a petry dish



The third trimester is way past the petri dish stage, and you already said you had no problem with abortion then.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> As a man I don't really have much of a dog in this fight



Well, that is a good topic for another thread.  And that might also depend on whether or not you are the father of the fetus.  As an individual with libertarian leanings I think human rights are worth defending.  But, we just don't agree as to where human rights begin.



> I think it is a good example that real life issues don't fit neatly into the "objective morality" that theists like to claim. Sometimes you have to actually think and thinking can be hard.



As I have said many times today, I absolutely agree.  I came to my opinion on this by removing every other factor and considering when human life begins.  I went with conception because, as stated previously, it is the least arbitrary and the most logical (for me) conclusion.

Just curious, do you have an idea as to when life begins that is less opinion oriented and more fact based than conception?



> Why not? There is no brain at all at conception much less any other organs



No, but unless something awful happens (as in your example), they will all develop shortly.  The genetics for their construction exist at conception.

I am surprised euthenasia hasn't come up when discussing the value of life.  Now that is a fun debate.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

It isn't murder IMO because "they" are no longer there. Without a functioning brain you're not a sentient being, just a body on a slab.

We can rewind the reproduction process back further than conception and the potential to grow into a full human is still there but at that time it's just that, potential.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> We can rewind the reproduction process back further than conception and the potential to grow into a full human is still there but at that time it's just that, potential.



Yes, but that doesn't disprove the point.  You mentioned the sperm and the egg.  Neither have the genetic makeup to become a human unless acted on by the other.  They are just factors waiting to cause something.  The fertilized egg is the something they cause.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Just curious, do you have an idea as to when life begins that is less opinion oriented and more fact based than conception?



Nope. Don't have any easy answers. All I have is the two endpoints that I can point to and say immoral and not immoral.

I would consider it murder to kill a new born and also murder to kill that new born just a few days before birth. I don't think this is in the same ball park as taking the morning after pill or having an early abortion. Because the development process happens on a gradient rather than concrete stages I don't see any non-arbitrary cut off point. But... if one is to be made I would think it needs to be somehow tied to the development of the brain. I wouldn't consider it immoral to terminate an anencephalitic pregnancy at any stage.

And... as a libertarian myself if government is going to be involved in this sort of decision I prefer that it err on the side of the self ownership of the mother.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, but that doesn't disprove the point.  You mentioned the sperm and the egg.  Neither have the genetic makeup to become a human unless acted on by the other.  They are just factors waiting to cause something.  The fertilized egg is the something they cause.



Yes and certain factors or conditions must be in place for the egg to develop further. You have a test tube of sperm and a test tube of eggs and they are just human cells but combine them into one test tube and they are suddenly people with human rights?  It's still just biological material with the potential to develop into a human being IMO.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> Nope. Don't have any easy answers



There aren't any as far as I can tell.  



> And... as a libertarian myself if government is going to be involved in this sort of decision I prefer that it err on the side of the self ownership of the mother.



This is about the only area where I part from a libertarian system because I think the true libertarian position would be to defend the individual liberty of the unborn.  A mother is temporarily deprived her rights, but the unborn is permanently deprived it's rights.  But, that takes us back to when those rights begin.....

Aside from that, denying the "inalienable right to life" from the unborn child, the woman can do whatever the heck she wants with her body.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The fertilized egg is the something they cause.





atlashunter said:


> Yes and certain factors or conditions must be in place for the egg to develop further. You have a test tube of sperm and a test tube of eggs and they are just human cells but combine them into one test tube and they are suddenly people with human rights?  It's still just biological material with the potential to develop into a human being IMO.



And that is where it gets interesting.

When in the human, the fertilized egg will begin to split before implanted on the uteran wall (If I recall correctly).  Now, in a test tube, does the fertilized egg begin to split and develop before they freeze it or do they get it right at the time of fertilization?

So...all that to say is, do you believe you've got life at the point of fertilization? or at the point of implantation on the uteran wall?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> Yes and certain factors or conditions must be in place for the egg to develop further.



...but the wheels are in motion.  We are going to go in circles here. I could possibly move my logical position to the point where the conceived egg will or should, in a natural setting, develop into a human, but that is getting very much into the realm of opinion as to when that point is also.  

But that is just my thoughts.  Its a fun debate.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> So...all that to say is, do you believe you've got life at the point of fertilization? or at the point of implantation on the uteran wall?



I have seen arguments both ways in reference to the morning after pill.  It gets confusing to me, I hate biology.  So I just drew the least arbitrary line I could find at conception.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I have seen arguments both ways in reference to the morning after pill.  It gets confusing to me, I hate biology.  So I just drew the least arbitrary line I could find at conception.



Any exceptions to the rule?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 29, 2011)

> Any exceptions to the rule?



Probably. 



Y'all have a nice weekend.  I'm going fishing!


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I have seen arguments both ways in reference to the morning after pill.  It gets confusing to me, I hate biology.  So I just drew the least arbitrary line I could find at conception.



Right..and my point isn't even the morning after pill...because that causes a flush of everything...and most will be against it.

But here is the rub that most Christians claim ignorance on.  There are 4 ways that a normal birth control pill works.  The first 3 have to do with preventing the egg from getting fertilized.  The 4th?  well...it is the same as the morning after pill.

So...if you have a problem with the morning after pill...you should have a problem with the standard pill.  How Christian doctors/OBGYNs can rationalize this...I do not know.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> We're not talking about when abortion should be okay or not.  We're talking about taking stem cells from aborted babies...or test tube babies that aren't going to be used.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I call it stoping them from growing/continuing to grow and put them in a state to where they start to decompose

That all it is.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I call it stoping them from growing/continuing to grow and put them in a state to where they start to decompose
> 
> That all it is.



Isn't that what killing is?  Extermination is?


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

Here is a guestion for you.........

If abortion is murder and murder is is a sin...how do you feel about capitol crime and the death penalty?


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Isn't that what killing is?  Extermination is?



Not at all......killing is the taking of a life....abortion is just a medical procedure for a purpose other than that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Not at all......killing is the taking of a life....abortion is just a medical procedure for a purpose other than that.



Oh, good grief.   You can't be serious.

_Of course_ it's a medical procedure ... that takes a life.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Oh, good grief.   You can't be serious.
> 
> _Of course_ it's a medical procedure ... that takes a life.



That's your opinion .....just not mine.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 29, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes:
> 
> "Life begins when a baby is born and takes it's first breath ..."
> 
> ...



And your point??


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 29, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Here are the results of a harris poll that was conducted and it continues to grow.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/most-americans-back-embryonic-stem-cell-research-poll.html



I appreciate you posting that, but I feel that a two day internet poll with 2100 answers is hardly decisive.

In my opinion, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Stem cell research is weird enough that I can't support it. I don't support cloning sheep either.

As for the abortion thing (I will not offer any evidence or sources other than my own experience), as the father of a 13 month old baby, I strongly believe that life begins at conception.

Whatever arguement you want to make to the contrary is your business, and not mine, but I have to tell you that you are absolutely dead wrong. I saw that little face on the ultrasound when she was the size of a small potatoe, and she was definetly alive. If you think otherwise, then you aren't paying attention.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 29, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> There aren't any as far as I can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Including throwing herself down a flight of stairs to cause a miscarriage?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 30, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> And your point??



... is that a third trimester baby is not a few cells in a petri dish.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 30, 2011)

> Including throwing herself down a flight of stairs to cause a miscarriage?



Isn't that answered by the first half of sentence you highlighted?  

If she wants to have the baby then throw herself down the stairs I do not see a problem there.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> ... is that a third trimester baby is not a few cells in a petri dish.



I say you can have your opinions about abortion and when life begins....All I say is choice about ones body and anything to do with it should be yours and yours alone.
I said up to and including 3rd trimester abortion is acceptable when the life of the mother hangs in the balance.
When that is the case I save the mother every single time.

What do you do in that situation??....and don't say you "pray" that never happens....just tell me what you do in that situation.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I appreciate you posting that, but I feel that a two day internet poll with 2100 answers is hardly decisive.
> 
> In my opinion, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Stem cell research is weird enough that I can't support it. I don't support cloning sheep either.
> 
> ...



I guess I will never understand why anyone would not support stem cell research....
Maybe if one of your childrens life depended on it to find a cure you could change your mind.

And again with the abortion question....it's a matter of "none of your buisness"....It's a womans choice, like it or not and yes....I do pay attention...maybe you should do the same and take a closer look.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

No one up for the death penalty issue???

Killing is a sin you know....


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 30, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> No one up for the death penalty issue???
> 
> Killing is a sin you know....





Make a new thread on the subject, and add a poll to it. Put it in the Political Forum so you`ll get more response. 

The final result might surprise you.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 30, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> No one up for the death penalty issue???
> 
> Killing is a sin you know....



I have no problem with the death penalty.  Comparing a convicted murderer with a baby in the womb is just ridiculous.  Besides, a lethal injection is just a medical procedure.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 30, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> No one up for the death penalty issue???
> 
> Killing is a sin you know....



I've got no problem with Capital punishment.  When a person kills another, they've lost the privilege of life.


As far as abortion goes...when the life of the mother is in danger, then I would agree with terminating the pregnancy.  For instance, the case of a ectopic pregnancy.  Both will die if it isn't terminated.  

Now...do you favor a third trimester abortion when it has nothing to do with the health of the mother?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 30, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I said up to and including 3rd trimester abortion is acceptable when the life of the mother hangs in the balance.
> When that is the case I save the mother every single time.



So would I, but we don't have the number of abortions we have in this country because we're saving womens' lives.  We have the number of abortions we do because it's used as birth control.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 30, 2011)

> All I say is choice about ones body and anything to do with it should be yours and yours alone.



Nobody is debating that.  The argument is what a person is allowed to do to another person's (the unborn person) body.



> And again with the abortion question....it's a matter of "none of your buisness"....It's a womans choice, like it or not



We make it our business if she gives birth and throws the baby in the dumpster.  What you seem to have missed is that nobody cares what a woman chooses to do with her body.  Because pro-life individuals have concluded life begins before birth, they feel obligated to defend that life's right to live.  

I personally don't care how anybody lives their life.  A woman could prostitute herself for drug money and I would think it was nobody's business.  But when she chooses to terminate another person I think it is society's business.

And please do start a capital punishment thread, I might be on your team with that one.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> Make a new thread on the subject, and add a poll to it. Put it in the Political Forum so you`ll get more response.
> 
> The final result might surprise you.



Thanks Nicodemus.....I thought it might be of some relevence here but if you would prefer, I'll withdraw the question.
I'm pretty sure most of GON nation is in favor of the death penalty....I was just wondering how that squares with god.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Nobody is debating that.  The argument is what a person is allowed to do to another person's (the unborn person) body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You see, that gets to the root of the argument...one side believes life starts here, and the other thinks it's here.
I was always interested in why there is such a vast difference of opinions there.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> So would I, but we don't have the number of abortions we have in this country because we're saving womens' lives.  We have the number of abortions we do because it's used as birth control.



I understand , and that saddens me.


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

Now...do you favor a third trimester abortion when it has nothing to do with the health of the mother? 


No.


----------



## dawg2 (Jul 30, 2011)

applejuice said:


> Research with stem cells
> Scientists and researchers are interested in stem cells for several reasons. Although stem cells do not serve any one function, many have the capacity to serve any function after they are instructed to specialize. Every cell in the body, for example, is derived from first few stem cells formed in the early stages of embryological development. Therefore, stem cells extracted from embryos can be induced to become any desired cell type. This property makes stem cells powerful enough to regenerate damaged tissue under the right conditions
> 
> Organ and tissue regeneration
> ...



The sourc of the stem cells is my main point of contention.


----------



## dawg2 (Jul 30, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> So would I, but we don't have the number of abortions we have in this country because we're saving womens' lives.  We have the number of abortions we do because it's used as birth control.



Exactly...and people think the Germans killed a lot of people...


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> The sourc of the stem cells is my main point of contention.



Adult stem cells can only be used to mirror a certain few cells.
Embryonic stem cells are used for all cells of the human body.....I don't see a problem using them.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 30, 2011)

I thought this thread was about Stem Cells? And there are plenty of studies out there that show Adult Stem Cells have plenty of success in treating diseases, vs. Embryonic which haven't proven as successful.

So just how does this topic always revert back to 8 to 10 year old technology that isn't as popular as it first was?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 30, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Adult stem cells can only be used to mirror a certain few cells.
> Embryonic stem cells are used for all cells of the human body.....I don't see a problem using them.



And if they are used, they more likely are drawn from the amniotic fluid or umbilical cord now days, causing absolutely no harm to the mother or the baby.

So I ask again, what's the problem?


----------



## bad0351 (Jul 30, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I thought this thread was about Stem Cells? And there are plenty of studies out there that show Adult Stem Cells have plenty of success in treating diseases, vs. Embryonic which haven't proven as successful.
> 
> So just how does this topic always revert back to 8 to 10 year old technology that isn't as popular as it first was?



 "Adult Stem Cells have plenty of success in treating diseases, vs. Embryonic which haven't proven as successful"

Yet.......


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 31, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> I guess I will never understand why anyone would not support stem cell research....
> Maybe if one of your childrens life depended on it to find a cure you could change your mind.
> 
> And again with the abortion question....it's a matter of "none of your buisness"....It's a womans choice, like it or not and yes....I do pay attention...maybe you should do the same and take a closer look.



I don't support organ transplants either. When it is time, it is time.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 1, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> And if they are used, they more likely are drawn from the amniotic fluid or umbilical cord now days, causing absolutely no harm to the mother or the baby.
> 
> So I ask again, what's the problem?



It seems to me that this "Frankensteinish". Just my opinion.


----------



## bad0351 (Aug 2, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Exactly...and people think the Germans killed a lot of people...



More people have been killed in the name of religion than in all the wars ever fought.....ALL WARS.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 5, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> More people have been killed in the name of religion than in all the wars ever fought.....ALL WARS.



Did some of those deaths attributed to religion take place in religious wars? Wouldn't they fall into the classification of "all the wars ever fought.....ALL WARS"?

This is a confusing statistic/statement. I think somebody probably made it up. Do you have a source?


----------



## bad0351 (Aug 6, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Did some of those deaths attributed to religion take place in religious wars? Wouldn't they fall into the classification of "all the wars ever fought.....ALL WARS"?
> 
> This is a confusing statistic/statement. I think somebody probably made it up. Do you have a source?



Yeeeeesss Ted......I'll get it for you but I'm sure you'll say it's not conclusive again...
And it's true....look at christianity and the dark history...disconcerting at the very least.

Here is a little something to whet your appetite...

http://theskepticalreview.com/JAHPoliticsDeathToll.html


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 6, 2011)

bad0351 said:


> Yeeeeesss Ted......I'll get it for you but I'm sure you'll say it's not conclusive again...
> And it's true....look at christianity and the dark history...disconcerting at the very least.
> 
> Here is a little something to whet your appetite...
> ...



OK, so the link cites a bunch of religious wars. Does this support my previous comment about.....ALLWARS?

You are mixing statistics. Speaking of which, I wonder how "the medical procedure known as abortion" stacks up against deaths attributed to.....ALLWARS.

And by the way, do you dispute that a two day internet poll with 2500 results is inconclusive? Or are you still hanging on to that one?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 6, 2011)

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States. It is not mandatory to report an abortion, so this number is fuzzy.

Wikipedia - an unreliable source, but they mentioned in the article that the estimate was unreliable, so whatever.

I have seen estimates of approximately 100 billion deaths attributed to ALL WARS (worldwide) since the begining of recorded history, from multiple sources. It is difficult to tell due to the length of history and incomplete reporting, and what is a war, or what is just "unpleasantness".

So, of all the deaths in all the wars (worldwide) since the begining of recorded history (10,000 years or so), the United States has achieved approximately .05% of that mortality in the last 35 years through legal "medical procedures".

Could be it is all unpleasant.


----------

