DescentBB

Darkside Heartless wrote:This should be a moot point, as we can get WAY more stem cells out of an adult than we can any fetus. The cells are even more pure than fetus cells.
On a side note, Abortion is wrong, as the fetus is 100% capable of surviving to be a fully functional human being, therefore it's murder.

The unborn child is called a fetus after 8 weeks of pregnancy. I don't think there's even a remote chance of a baby born after only 8 weeks to survive. Hell, I was born 8-10 weeks early and I spent my first month in the hospital.

The problem with cloning is that the clone will never be as good as the original.

You know, I really hate to have to ask this, but I must... Are you basing that on science or Star Trek? If science, please cite your source, as I would love to read it. I'm certainly no biologist, but I'll muddle through as best I can.

Cloned beings have weaker immune systems. That's a fact present in all animals we have cloned as of yet.

So much better to let in a "war president"!

The same darn people that were all for Clinton going after Iraq, were totally against Bush. What hippocrits!:P

A LOT more people die in abortions than in war! Also, abortion is simply wrong, and no matter how you look at it, it's murder. Did you know that most people who've had an abortion strongly regret it later in life, and if someone had just told them that they didn't have to do it, they wouldn't have.

I've met people who were conceived of rape. They are very glad that they were allowed to live.

BTW cloning is also wrong.

Also, there were weapons of mass destruction found on more than one occaision! Husane was an evil man, now he's defeated. That's good.

"Thou shalt not kill"

There is such thing as a just war, but abortion is not just by any means!

I'm not an expert on any of this, but I think DCrazy said something important that most people missed.

You get stem cells from a blastocyst, not a fetus. So calling it an "abortion" is technically incorrect because there is nothing to abort. Now whether you have ethical problems with that or not is a different story, but it's more of a pre-abortion because left in its place, it will never grow into a baby.

From what I understand with Bush's limit is that we can't create new lines of stem cells. Ever time someone tries to have a baby through artificial insemination, many eggs are fertilized and used as needed. The ones that are not used are then destroyed. What researchers want is to take the cells that were going to be just thrown out and create lines of stem cells from them.

Now, there is not going to be any kind of "stem cell farm" or growing of "fetuses" just for producing stem cells because one, we're already producing them through the process above and two, once you have a line of cells, it doesn't ever wear out (from what I know). The main issues is really patents and companies trying to make money off of it. In order to use someone's line you need to have their permission or pay a gratuity, etc, etc.


Note:
Kerry is not pro-abortion. Very very few people I would say are pro-abortion. He's pro-choice, which means he believes woman should have the choice to have a safe abortion. What it really boils down to is what happens when you ban abortion? Read Cider House Rules for a taste of what it's like to get an abortion in a back alley. With abortion legalized, people can have the procedure done safely.

As an example, look at prohibition. Banning alcohol lead to more deaths and crime than legalizing it did. It's a matter of choosing between options that exist, lesser of two evils.

Kd527 wrote:The same darn people that were all for Clinton going after Iraq, were totally against Bush. What hippocrits!:P

First, its hypocrites.

Second, I would have been for Clinton going after Saddam just on the basis that Saddam was Saddam. I think almost everyone can agree to that. I was not for bush going after Saddam because none of the reasons he stated were true. Saddam had no WMD at the time of our invasion. Saddam did not pose an immediate threat, and Saddam was not consorting with Al-Quaeda nor did he have anthing to do with 9/11. Saddams only crime is being Saddam, which I think would have been the justification needed for taking him out.

Lets not forget that Saddams former WMD were all pretty much given to him by us so he could gas Iran. Lets not forget that it was Republican presidents, REgan and the Elder Bush, who cozied up to him and gave him the WMD to behin with, and then forgot to yank on his leash later thus giving him the impression that he was free to invade kuait(sp?). And lets not forget that it was the Elder Bush that haulted a plan in the early 90's to take out Saddam period, thus allowing him to go on to do the devious things he did for the next several years. Did Bush fix a grave error made by previous Republican administrations? Yes. Did he do it for the right reasons? No. He lied to the American public, plain and simple, exaggerating the threat Saddam posed to us instead of focusing on the fact that we should have nailed him just because he was Saddam.

Kd527 wrote:Did you know that most people who've had an abortion strongly regret it later in life, and if someone had just told them that they didn't have to do it, they wouldn't have.

Yes. My mother is one of them. I would have had a sibling 10 years older than me if she had not had one. It was an abortion of convenience for her and yes, in he back of my mind I do think of her as a murderer. I outlined the different premises of Abortion and what I think is and is not accepable there. Please re-read that post.

Kd527 wrote:BTW cloning is also wrong

No argument there, provided its a whole person being cloned. If we can find a way to clone organs alone that would be great.

Kd527 wrote:Also, there were weapons of mass destruction found on more than one occaision!

Gaseous anomalies, rusted canisters, and a few caches of conventional explosives. Apparently you didnt read the "Oh wait, we were wrong" stories that predicatbly followed every announcement hat WMD had been found in Iraq.

Kd527 wrote:"Thou shalt not kill" There is such thing as a just war, but abortion is not just by any means!

Those two statements are in conflict with eachother.
I dont see how you think the ending of one life is unjustifyable no matter what compared to the ending of thousands upon thousands of lives in a bloody military conflict. There are exceptions to every rule and instances where some of the most unthinkable acts could be made justifiable. If you wish to abide by the strictest interperetation of that commanment I suggest you denounce all wars and denounce Bush for starting one.

I admit that I don't know how to defend that last statement, but abortion is still killing the most innocent and indefensible life. Also, a just war does not target civilians.

Abortions shouldn't happen legally or illegally. Making it illegal is supposed to keep people from having them.

Also, I admit that I don't know if this war was actually a just war or not. I didn't mean to imply that I did. But, of course you have to agree that it's good that Saddam is out of power.

Kd527 wrote:Also, a just war does not target civilians.

"a just war" is an opinion.

And wars have nothing to do with stem cells. Unless you're Hitler and are planning the repopulation of the world... ugh, back on topic!

Saddam did not pose an immediate threat, and Saddam was not consorting with Al-Quaeda nor did he have anthing to do with 9/11.

Bush never made either of those claims.

Neither did I!

Kd527 wrote:A LOT more people die in abortions than in war!

How about some figures to back this statement up? The death tolls for both World Wars are in the millions, and I don't think the US Civil War is too far behind.

About 3000 babies are killed a day in abortions! google it. you just might find something.

On the issue of stem cells, they have had no success with babies. They're too unstable. However, they've had some success with adults. The only reason that they're pushing only the embryonic stem cell research is mainly to keep abortion legal.

You know, if they allow the growing of babies simply for killing and utilizing, it degrades the "useless" humans to a utilitarian purpose. It is the foundation for doing it to bigger people, and the culture of death that we're now in moves even more toward the "dark side" if you will.

The unborn child is called a fetus after 8 weeks of pregnancy. I don't think there's even a remote chance of a baby born after only 8 weeks to survive.

You're missing the point! Also, that's another reason not to allow it if the person isn't going to survive the "research".

Avder typed a while back:

If I had known as an embryo when I know now about what kind of life I would have ended up enduring, and the idiotic people I would have ended up alling my "family", I'm not quite sure if I would have wanted to be aborted or not.

Either your life really sux or you're just screwed up. Either way, you're missing the point!

Kd, you are not understanding something. There are different types of stem cells, some being more specialized than others. During the early stages of post-fertilization, before the blastocyst (the fertilized egg that has split a bunch of times) has managed to embed itself in the uterus wall (and is therefore not self-sufficient at all in any possible way), there are two types of super-stem cells present. Those found inside the wall of the blastocyst are capable of forming almost any cell found in an adult human. They are *not*, however, capable of forming the tissue required to sustain a fetus (placenta, umbillical cord). The stem cells that give rise to these tissues are found in the wall of the blastocyst. After the blastocyst has embedded itself in the wall of the uterus, the blastocyst wall becomes the placenta, and the inside contents start specializing into specific kinds of stem cells. These semi-stem cells, if you wish, are only capable of producing certain types of cells found in a grown human. Blood stem cells, for example, can become (specialize into) red blood cells or white blood cells. Your body never stops making blood stem cells, but it does stop making the types of stem cells that would allow you to grow skin, etc.

Now, the whole point of explaining this is to show you at what point the stem cells would be harvested to be of most benefit. In-Vitro fertilization (test tube babies) is performed by fertilizing many, many eggs with sperm. In normal intercourse, the woman only has one egg present. Of course, this plurality of eggs makes it a statistical guarantee that more than one will be fertilized. What the scientists can do is instead of discarding the seven or eight fertilized eggs that would otherwise be discarded (not everybody wants octuplets!), they can take stem cells from the inside and then discard the rest. But it's people like you who don't know what they're talking about that ruin science for the rest of us.

Pebkac wrote:

Saddam did not pose an immediate threat, and Saddam was not consorting with Al-Quaeda nor did he have anthing to do with 9/11.

Bush never made either of those claims.

Heres a quote from his 2003 State of the Union Speech:

George W. Bush wrote: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

He made the claim that Saddam an Al-Qaida were working together.

And in a speech made on October 6, 2002 almost exclusivly about Iraq:

George W. Bush wrote:Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

He made the claims and only recently when the heat has really been turned up has he relented on some of those. Anyway, back on topic:

Kd527 wrote:Abortions shouldn't happen legally or illegally. Making it illegal is supposed to keep people from having them.

I agree that in an ideal world they wouldnt happen. But I went over that in a previous post. I suggest you reread that one as well. The simple fact that some have already pointed out is that if you outlaw abortions people are going to have outlaw, back-alley , coat hanger abortions. Also, you have not even responded to my discussion about universal access to birth control or medical care for pregnant women. What is your opinion on that, sir?

Kd527 wrote:Either your life really sux or you're just screwed up. Either way, you're missing the point!

Score two for you in the first sentance. You forgot the possibility of both being true and therefore you should have said "and/or". Regardless, what is the point that I am missing?

I think DCrazy has some good points about Blastocysts. If were creating that many of them for in-vitro fertilizations, why shouldnt we be able to use the unused ones for something else? Theyre just going to be discarded anyway.

see this is the problem.. whenever the topic of stem cells comes up it's always turned into a pro/anti-abortion debate.

morality vs logic.

we wouldn't have this problem if people didn't hang onto an antiquated way of thinking.

It's like the story of two people stuck on an island out in the middle of nowhere. one belived in himself. the other belived in God. Long story short, the guy who spent his days praying died in a week, while the person who got up and fended for himself lived for years.

so hey.. if you want to have alzheimers, lou gheric's disease, and whatever else kind of terminal disease that cannot be cured by today's medical knowledge, go ahead and make abortion illegal. It doesn't matter if someone's suffering a horrible existence in agony as long as they're alive and there are more babies in the world.

i had a girlfriend who had an abortion without telling me. i could have stopped her by tying her up and making sure she never left my sight 24 hours a day. i wouldnt have slept for 9 months, but i could have stopped her. i would have to had quit my job to do this, thus i wouldnt have been able to support my baby, but i could have stopped her.

am i a murderer?

no.

but of course the right wing extreme christians will claim you are.

kurupt wrote:am i a murderer?

No, but from the context it sounds like she is. Isnt she the girl that sent you into a deep depression a few years ago when you were still on kali?

Back on topic, a more honest summary of stem cell research and the US government. Registration required but worth the read and you'll be surprised at some of the political misrepresentations the Kerry campaign has inserted into the public mind.

...far from banning embryonic stem cell research, George W. Bush is the first President to expand federal funding for it. The nearby table shows that, as a result of his decision, federal funding went from zero in 2000 to nearly $25 million today--and this doesn't include the many tens of millions more being spent by the private sector. As Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson points out, the supply of embryonic stem cell shipments available is today greater than the demand.

The issue is federal subsidies. The need for a Presidential decision arose from an appropriations rider passed by Congress in the mid-1990s forbidding federal funding for any research that creates, injures or destroys human embryos.

The President's answer was that there ought to be no restrictions on the private sector but that federal subsidies should be limited to lines that had already been harvested and should not be used to encourage the destruction of embryos. In short, it was a reasonable middle ground. It's worth noting that other countries, such as Germany, Ireland and Austria, ban even the private sector from creating embryos for stem cell research.

The potential for embryonic stem cells is that they are malleable and can differentiate themselves into needed cells. That gives them tremendous potential, but it also presents a liability because we can't yet control what these cells will turn into. In one animal study, a fifth of the mice injected with embryonic stem cells developed brain tumors.

Which helps explain why we still have not had a single human trial for embryonic stem cells. And it means that political claims that cures for diabetes or Parkinson's are just around the corner are cruelly raising false hopes.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110005467

DCrazy, first of all, people should not be "created" that way. If someone can't have a baby and they really want to, they should adopt one of those that would otherwise be aborted. Now, whether they're 8 days old in that condition or not or 8 years old, they're not any less human. They are fully a person, and they need to be let alone so they can grow properly.

Avder:

Kerry is pro choice. I dont think anyone would advocate that it is good to have an abortion, just that it is good to have it as an option.

There is no "choice". God said that you're either with Him or against Him. Abortion can't ever be good (thus against God), so Kerry's just a demigod like all the other liberals out there. It's never an "option" to kill your baby like that, even if it's to save the mother. Those occaisions are very rare, and probably won't help anyway. There is the C-section after all. And at least the mother's been given the chance to live. The baby hasn't even lived for a year yet.

. . .

I have lost whatever hope for you that I had. I'm surprised you let yourself use a computer.

Are you aware that the process that happens in a test tube is the exact same process that occurs in a fallopian tube? One's made of glass and one's made of flesh. It all winds up in the uterus anyway.

what do you mean?

Doesn't matter, and they are no less a person either. They shouldn't be used for utilitarian purposes. Why don't we switch our government to a Nazi or Chinese one. Then we'd have no choice but to go along with it.

Ferno, morality is logic!

Kd527 wrote:It's never an "option" to kill your baby like that, even if it's to save the mother.

Wow...

Kd, have you had biology classes yet? Are you aware of how fertilization takes place? When incompatible couples cannot conceive normally, depending on the nature of the problem, doctors will often harvest many eggs from the woman and place them in a petri dish, and then insert the man's semen in an attempt to increase the odds of a successful fertilization. If the problem lies in the actual eggs or sperm, donors will be used.

Since, to be considered fertile, every milliliter of semen must contain 20 million sperm, having more than one egg around greatly (and I mean that) increases the odds of multiple fertilizations occurring, and therefore multiple children. Many doctors do not discard developing embryos, but many people don't want triplets or quadruplets. I see nothing wrong with randomly choosing extra fertilized eggs to keep around until the blastocyst stage.

Kd527 wrote:It's never an "option" to kill your baby like that, even if it's to save the mother.

So we should just let both die? Is that what youre saying? You'd rather condemn both than save one? Kill them both and let God sort it out, right? We have technology that could save one, and God allowed us to discover it, so as far as I am concerned that gives us the ability to use it, if needed, to save one if both are doomed.

I've got to admit that I can't remember how long ago it was, but the whole topic of In-Vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, and all that's related caused a pretty huge debate, and THIS is why. Pandora's box was opened anyway.

DCrazy, did you not read my above posts? That will open society up to using more than just babies. I they can't have a baby naturally, maybe it ain't supposed to happen! This would help save a lot more if everyone in this circumstance adopted.

BTW I'm not a fundamentalist.

Kd, what do you mean "more than using just babies"? If you're referring to stem cells, then it has already been established multiple times that stem cells can only be taken from things that haven't come anywhere close to the stage where they could be called "babies" by any stretch of the imagination.

Who's sitting down deciding who can and can't have kids? (I'll give you a hint, it begins with "G" and ends with "enetics".) And do you know how many YEARS adoption waiting lists stretch back? If you want to use your "natural order" position (which you are taking with infertility/incompatibility) then adoption is just as unnatural as having fertilization performed in a lab.

JFTR, I'm morally opposed to abortion in non-life-threatening cases.

morality is logic?

are you for real man?

Kd527 wrote:BTW I'm not a fundamentalist.

oh please. I wasn't born yesterday.

As I stated earlier (or tried to), if those people adopted the babies that would otherwise be aborted, maybe that problem wouldn't exist.

Those "nonbabies" are still persons. Adults have stem cells also. In fact there's more promise with adult stem cells than embryonic.

I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm a Catholic.

last i checked there was no such thing as adult stem cells.

where are you getting your facts from?

Avder wrote:

kurupt wrote:am i a murderer?

No, but from the context it sounds like she is. Isnt she the girl that sent you into a deep depression a few years ago when you were still on kali?

si. that really fucked me up.

Kd527 wrote:DCrazy, did you not read my above posts? That will open society up to using more than just babies.

what is so hard to understand? we cant use babies for stem cells because babies don't have stem cells. they have baby cells. stem cells are blank cells that have not been "colored in" to form a baby. once life starts forming it has already proceeded past the point of being used for stem cells because those blank stem cells have been colored in as whatever characteristics that baby has.

i thought i heard that you could use dna to make generic stem cells, but i imagine that it would be infinitely harder to create a stem cell than it is to find stem cells that are already there.

kd, is your only knowledge on stem cells that southpark episode where christopher reeve kept breaking open fetuses and drinking them to become superman and then cartman used fetuses to create a clone of that pizza joint? because that sure sounds like where you get your info from. it was a good episode, but not scientifically correct i'm afraid.

Well that's understandable, to say the least.

Kd, go back and read what I wrote. I personally would be in favor of banning abortions "of convenience" because, in my opinion, that merely contributes to the whole ignorance of consequence this country suffers from now.

Blastocysts have yet to embed themselves in the uterus wall. In cases of in-vitro fertilization, I would see extra fertilized eggs as "by-product". But what you say about fertilized eggs being beings holds true for me in all cases of natural copulation.

Where are you getting this notion that there are more promises with adult stem cells than with embryonic stem cells? Once you hit the fetal stage, cells can only develop into certain types of cells (these are called multipotent stem cells, meaning they can develop into two or three different things, rather than the pluripotent stem cells found in pre-fetal offspring that can develop into anything). It's true that the adult body does have some stem cells; the existence of blood stem cells in your bones is the basis for bone marrow transplants.

I was born and raised a Catholic. I know what's rhetoric and what isn't, and your posts smack of Rome.

Really, it's a matter of this: Does the end justify the means? Yeah, alot of people could be cured from alzimers, and other diseases through this research, but does that mean it's ok? Not necessarily. From a biological stance, it seems that using stem cells from aborted fetuses to cure old people is kinda like stealing from the future in order to prolong the past. I realize that it isn't that simple, though.

This is why I disagree with it: back in the day, before abortion was legal, people would get shoddy abortions in some alley. It happened, but because of the danger involved, it didn't happen that much. Well, when they legalized it, one of the arguments used in favor of legalizing abortion was that it would make it much safer for a pregnant woman who either A) was going to do it either way, or B) had complications of some sort. Well, how can you oppose that? I mean, it's saving lives. Legalizing abortions was very effective at those two things. That's great. But, the net result isn't the same: as a result of legalizing abortions a few more lives are saved, and a ton more fetuses are lost. I'm not going to argue about whether a fetus is a human life or not, but I think we can all agree that they are a form of life with potential to become a human, and full grown people are a form of life. So, as a result of legalizing abortions, more forms of life are killed than before. Now, we get to stem cell research, and I see the same process repeating. Why oppose it? Because inevitably using fetuses for stem cell research will lead to losing more forms of life, in order to make the lives that exist more comfortable. I know- it's just using what already is happening for a good cause- but you can't honestly say that this won't lead to more fetuses being aborted, because it will. Donating your fetus to stem cell research is more easily justifiable than simply throwing it away. I'm not saying that it will lead to alot more, but it will lead to more.

That being said, from the stance that the U.S. courts have taken concerning abortion, apparantly the means are fine all on their own, without any end needing to justify them. I think a fetus is a human life, but I know that most of the people out there would disagree with me.

[EDIT]
Stick embedded life form in there instead of fetus- I don't know the terms and all- I guess I don't want people just being like "screw birth control, we'll just donate to stem cell research!"

I agree totally with DCrazy- the biggest problem I have is with convinience abortions.

[edit]... quick with the edit there aren't ya [/edit]

snoopy wrote:inevitably using fetuses for stem cell research will lead to losing more forms of life, in order to make the lives that exist more comfortable. I know- it's just using what already is happening for a good cause- but you can't honestly say that this won't lead to more fetuses being aborted, because it will. Donating your fetus to stem cell research is more easily justifiable than simply throwing it away. I'm not saying that it will lead to alot more, but it will lead to more.

How will stem cell research leat to more abortions? Will people start offering up their unborn fetuses to scientific research corporations for money? Will Said corporations start up "fetus farms" where they get women pregnant and then harvest the created fetuses? Will they start publicly offering money for women to have abortions so they can collect fetuses? I'm pretty damn sure that there are almost no people in society that would stand for any of those possibilities, so I would like to know how you see yout prediction playing out.

Additionally, Kd, I am waiting for your responce to my previous post.

Edit - friggin bugs

You. Don't. Need. Fetuses.

You don't even need a woman's body. All you need are ova, sperm, a petri dish, and the right chemicals.