stem cells - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #61 10-14-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Well, the one about when the fetus becomes a child. In many states killing an unborn ---- is murder. I wonder when that miracle occurs?

B

When the bible says so? To me, it is when the fetus is viable ON IT'S OWN.

Botnst · #62 10-14-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

When the bible says so? To me, it is when the fetus is viable ON IT'S OWN.

Keep the red herrings in the sea.

Does your definition apply only to a fetus or does it extend to all humans?

B

aklim · #63 10-14-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Does your definition apply only to a fetus or does it extend to all humans?

As in what? Pull the plug when the person is not viable?

Botnst · #64 10-14-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

As in what? Pull the plug when the person is not viable?

As in the definition that you subscribe to for a young human, is it symmetrical for all humans? Or does each human have a unique definition of humanity?

B

aklim · #65 10-14-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

As in the definition that you subscribe to for a young human, is it symmetrical for all humans? Or does each human have a unique definition of humanity?

B

I would say that at this time, that fetus is not really a young human. More akin to a parasite that cannot survive without the parent.

Botnst · #66 10-14-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I would say that at this time, that fetus is not really a young human. More akin to a parasite that cannot survive without the parent.

Good answer to a question I hadn't thought to ask. Let me try again.

Your definition of a human at the beginning of life is viability ex utero.

Is that a constant definition or does it change with time and circumstances?

B

aklim · #67 10-14-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Your definition of a human at the beginning of life is viability ex utero.

Is that a constant definition or does it change with time and circumstances?

B

Yes.

Why should it change with time and circumstances? And before you ask, it is already in my advance directives that should I become crippled or unable to function, pull the plug.

dannym · #68 10-15-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

It proves no such thing. It proves that there are treatments that don't require embryonic stem cells. It doesn't prove that embryonic stem cells were not used to develop this technique, and it doesn't prove that there aren't other therapies where only embryonic stem cells are helpful (not that this can ever be proven).

I never said human embryos weren't being used in research and medical use. All I said is there are alternatives in use today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So what if we use aborted fetuses? They were scheduled to be aborted anyways

Scheduled for abortion??
Kinda like catching a train by the way you make it sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I would say that at this time, that fetus is not really a young human. More akin to a parasite that cannot survive without the parent.

That's a horrible analogy. Parasites don't have a "parent" they have a unwilling host. Completely different.
So exactly when does the fetus become a human??

aklim · #69 10-15-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

Scheduled for abortion?? Kinda like catching a train by the way you make it sound.

That's a horrible analogy. Parasites don't have a "parent" they have a unwilling host. Completely different.

So exactly when does the fetus become a human??

How is it not? You are scheduled for an abortion at 0800 hrs or whatever time the doctor schedules you.

When the woman decides she doesn't want the fetus growing inside her (unwilling host), what else do you call the growth that adds nothing but takes resources? How is it different?

When do you die? IOW, when are you considered clinically dead? When your heart stops? Old standard and no longer in effect. What are the signs the ER will use to determine you are dead? Take that and whatever is the opposite is alive.

dannym · #70 10-15-2008, 02:57 PM

OK lets try again.

When exactly does a fetus become a human?

Try to answer in your own words without answering a question with a question.

aklim · #71 10-15-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

When exactly does a fetus become a human?

Try to answer in your own words without answering a question with a question.

A live human? Like I said, look for signs of death. If it doesn't have it, it is alive and the species would be human. If it doesn't have those signs, it is just tissue. I would think it is no more than a corpse. Both are human but we are talking about being a live human, right?

dannym · #72 10-16-2008, 09:05 AM

OK since you refuse to give a direct answer I'll have to make guesses based on what you have said.
What I'm getting from you is a fully functioning brain, nervous system and bodily functions should be seen as signs of life and therefore human.
Lets forget for a minute that the human ZYGOTE is considered alive. According to YOU a human is alive at around 6 months:

Quote:

26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time.

According TO YOU a "scheduled" abortion" after 6 months is murder.
I would be really interested to know how you feel about partial birth abortions? Ignorance is not an excuse.
If I didn't know murder was a crime and I killed one of your parents then in your world I can't be held accountable. Especially if I "schedule" it.

Danny

aklim · #73 10-16-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannym

What I'm getting from you is a fully functioning brain, nervous system and bodily functions should be seen as signs of life and therefore human.

I would be really interested to know how you feel about partial birth abortions?

Yes. I will agree with that. Perhaps I wasn't clear but that is the essence of what I was saying.

I can't say I have agreed with that. If the woman doesn't want the child at that point, instead of an abortion, maybe C-section and she gives it up as a ward of the state

Botnst · #74 03-14-2009, 03:25 PM

In Stem Cell Debate, Moral Suasion Comes Up Short
By PETER STEINFELS
Published: March 14, 2009

Almost no one was surprised this week when President Obama lifted restrictions on stem cell research that involved the destruction of human embryos. Even jaded Washington watchers are adjusting to the idea that this is a president with an eerie determination to do exactly what he said he would do during his campaign.

Those who approve such research applauded Mr. Obama’s action. (“Fantastic,” said one stem cell scientist on PBS.) Those who disapprove condemned it. (“Deadly,” said an anti-abortion leader in The New York Times.) But some commentary focused at least as much on the nature of the president’s moral argument as on the specific conclusions he reached.

When it comes to the controversy over human embryonic stem cell research, moral argument has not been much in evidence. The president spoke of a popular consensus in favor of it reached “after much discussion, debate and reflection.” That is a kindly description of the hype, exaggeration and denunciation that have dominated the controversy.

Politicians, scientists and Hollywood stars conjured up visions of cures of biblical proportions. One member of the House of Representatives equated opposition to embryonic stem cell research with refusing “a cure for your child’s cancer.” Another called such opposition “a sentence of death of millions of Americans.”

Not long after the death of former President Ronald Reagan, his younger son, Ron, told delegates at the 2004 Democratic convention to imagine “your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital.”

“Sound like magic?” Mr. Reagan said. “Welcome to the future of medicine.”

Scientists who knew better kept quiet.

“People need a fairy tale,” Ronald D. G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, explained to The Washington Post in 2004.

Recently, Nicholas Wade in the Science section of The New York Times summed this all up: “Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the $3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.”

“In private, however,” the article continued, “many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells.”

more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/14beliefs.html?ref=us

tankdriver · #75 03-14-2009, 07:38 PM

Is there a point to that^? Just because stem cell research may not be what some people hope and believe it could be doesn't mean it's useless.

I admittedly am no expert on stem cell research, but I don't quite understand the stance against it. As far as I understand it, the cells don't die, they become (whatever) cells that live in the person's body.