Science comes from Latin? Are you just trying to point out the word is derived from Latin? That’s pretty damned irrelevant to this argument. And every scientific discovery confirms the need for morals? I don’t know how that works at all. Most of science isn’t related to people at all and hence has nothing to do with morals.
I’m pretty sure the people who advocate assisted suicide would consider that to be a moral decision backed up by scientific understanding of the illness in question.
That’s not a scientific fact. If it was, there wouldn’t BE a debate on stem cell or embyonic research.
So eggs and sperm (separately) aren’t life because they require each other to survive. Okay, then why is a zygote alive even though it requires a womb to incubate in? Apply the same logic of the first statement to the second one.
And even if a zygote is ‘alive’, then why is it wrong to use it in some useful scientific research rather than just dump it out with the trash?
Huh? There were precious few morals in the Cold War. It was mainly driven by people’s selfish desire to survive. It was extremely methodical and scientific; there were no obtuse morals in any states’ decision making processes.
What he’s saying is that you’re being virtually schizophrenic in your use of defenses. You’re trying to have the best of both worlds, but I think you’re rapidly ceding the high ground here. Your arbitrary lines between life and mere cells are warped and fuzzy, and it means your case is rapidly turning into an incoherent mess.
Actually FYI, I’m not sure 10 year old’s even know what a vagina is. Sperm and eggs may be a little beyond them.
And on that note, you know what else every 5th grader understands? That not researching a potential cure to a disease is stupid.
One thing you have conveniently ignored from my post on the previous page is my question to you about the morality of not researching potentially viable cures to diseases. Your ‘scientific’ point about adult stem cells being sufficient seems to conveniently ignore the point that there are people suffering from conditions right now that could be cured with the use of embryonic stem cells. How exactly do you reconcile that with your point about morals?
According to you, because a human being needs his or her mother they’re considered a parasite until they’re about 4 years of age? You are sick.
Because THEY ARE HUMAN. Are actually suggesting that you treat every human being other than yourself like an obstacle?
Lets see, after the Tsar bomb, America and the Soviet Union stopped trying to make a bigger nuke. If they would have they would have destroyed an entire continent. That is moral with science right there. If there were no morals involved in the decision, billions of people would have died.
How about you actually start reading what I wrote. Here it is in one sentence: Human life starts at conception!
If they murder someone to save someone else in the process it’s not potential at all. It’s degrading to men and women, using their children as property for testing. Embryonic stem cell research kills the child. Using the umbilical cord or the placenta is NOT embryonic stem cell research.
It’s the same type cells than in the umbilical cord and the ones that are produced in the small intestine only younger!!! Murdering someone who is at the moment a blastocyst or a zygote for a “potential cure for a disease” isn’t justifiable PERIOD. That would be like going up to someone who has 2 delta 32 genes in his cells and telling him: “oh we have to take your body to potentially find a cure for AIDS.” Seriously you don’t need to use human blastocysts or zygotes to cure anything. Adult and umbilical stem cells are what the scientific community should be focusing on, not the use of peoples’ bodies at the most early stages of life for your own personal gain.
You know as well as I do that a blastocyst is completely different from skin cells because in a blastocyst, it has the instructions to develop into an adult human being like yourself. It is one of the most early stages of life and you actually have the audacity to compare it to skin. It is fact, there is a debate because some people don’t know and other people lie about life to justify murder. If you want to debate, be honest and accept the fact that life starts at conception. Doctors KNOW life begins at conception.
Any other comments will probably result in copy pasting because of people’s ignorance and materialistic view towards life, so there’s no point in continuing this thread.
What I find truly fascinating is the fact that there are so many other options and means to take this type of research to the next level that makes this argument so petty. This whole thing originated from pro-choice folks choosing to hold this up on their shoulders as a means to insist the pro-lifers are inhibiting science. If the real argument was truly to further stem research, the focus would be less on embryonic tissue and instead adult stem cells.
ah yes… I suspect this will be another of those threads I will wind up not returning to eh?
What I meant to say was “I’m human once they’re joined together (conception) that and I have a right to life until a natural death.”
Anyway Catzeyes93 you’re absolutely correct. Adult Stem cells have cloned a lung, what has embryonic stem cells done? It develops into a baby just like it’s supposed to if it’s allowed to do what it’s designed to do. Let the blastocysts do their function and develop into an adult. Stem cells are produced in our small intestines and THAT’S where they should be collected for research. The digestive track in the small intestine is a production line for stem cells to replace cells all over the body, why not use those for research? They’ve already proven themselves.
You’re missing a very big point here: the embryos used would have no existence outside of the research. The embryos would not develop into an adult human being anyway. That argument is completely irrelevant.
They wouldn’t be fertilized in the first place if they would do IVF properly, 1 fertilization at a time.
Soup, your first post I answered already, the stem cell research I’m talking about and am against is the one that humans are created specifically to use their bodies as research material. Which Obama legalized a day after the march for life.
I already answered your fast crack about sperm.
And take a look at a video of prenatal development since you’re so interested about this. Science now has a window to the womb. Saying “he or she is not human till it’s born” is a lie. From the way you’re writing I can’t tell if you would even care if a woman would have a miscarriage after the child can see hear, taste, smell, dream, think and touch. According to you their lives are a moot point, just an argument, some cellular matter to be researched, a mass of cells… and all your apathetic anti human terms.
It has since the beginning of time, why would it be different now? If someone would break open a 5 day fertilized egg from a chicken, animal rights people would be all over it. But when it’s a human they say “it’s not human until it’s born or able to think on its own.” It has all the DNA of a human, it’s designed to grow into a fully independent human and within THREE weeks it already has a heart beat, therefore they are human, that’s all.
The only time there is debate is when someone doesn’t know the science behind it. Don’t bring philosophy into it. This is strictly about morals and science, not a philosophy that is discriminatory towards people who are too young to have developed the bodily functions to be able to think. EVERY single human body was a human blastocyst at one point in their lives, there’s no way around that fact.
It’s different if the baby died in the womb. Saved by letting a abortionist murder her child? Honestly that doctor if he recommended murder is completely anti-life. If the child was over 24 weeks old it could have survived outside of the womb! Honestly some doctors betray their hypocritical oath to care for EVERY patient from conception to natural death. If the doctor cared for both patients he would have tried to save both patients and given a C-section to save the lives of the baby and of your sister. These days there’s no excuse to save one life but abandon the other. Abortion is always intrinsically wrong.
You’re full of shit, as most people in this thread have already figured out.
A human blastocyst is a human blastocyst, it is not a human being. It’s impossible for something to be a human being until it is subjectively being. At what point a fetus becomes subjectively self-conscious is up for debate - science doesn’t have an answer for that - but most literate people agree that certain organs such as a “brain” are necessary, and before they are present consciousness is impossible. If a collection of cells is conscious of itself, then it’s wrong to experiment with it - whether it’s a lab rat, a monkey, or a human. But if it has no faculty for consciousness then who exactly are you defending when you say “they” can be murdered?
Here you go again, you’re discriminating against the age of a human being because they aren’t old enough to have a conscience and therefore you’re ignoring their life because of philosophy and you’re ignoring prenatal development.
Here you go again, you’re discriminating against millions of sick and dying human beings who’s suffering could be alleviated by stem cell research because of a religious philosophy and you’re ignoring prenatal development that precludes the possibility of stem cells being individuals.
See how this works?
Religion IS philosophy, it just conveniently ignores intellectual justifications in favor of the more convenient appeal to “absolute truth.”
Again, if a group of cells isn’t “old enough” to be subjectively, then its impossible to consider it a human being. When you say I’m ignoring “their life,” who’s life are you talking about? The cells can’t possess anything, there is no individual who exists to do the possessing.
Also, I just want to make sure you understand that “a conscience” is irrelevant to what I’m talking about - I can’t tell if you’re fully grasping what I’m saying about self-awareness and just accidentally used the wrong word, or if you are unaware of the distinction between “a conscience” and “consciousness.”
Don’t give me that, you already know that adult stem cells are better because it’s from the person therefore the body cannot reject it no matter which type of cell it turns into because it has his or her own DNA. Stem Cells are NOT individuals, it’s human blastocysts who are individuals and grow to be independent like you and me. Stop ignoring the knowledge we have already. Adult stem cells have cured people from Cancer, embryonic has done NOTHING because the body REJECTS THE CELLS!
If faith doesn’t go with science then tell me why is it that most people who are in sciences have some kind of belief in God? Your arguments are extremely weak, if you really want to get into science and religion, I give you Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, go to a library and borrow it. Not one Atheist has ever been able to defeat its scientific arguments EVER.
Although at the moment the patients generally get grafts vs. hosts disease, the Potential for Embryonic stem cells is much greater than that of Adult Stem cells, because Adult stem cells have a base fault: they are only multipotent; hence, they can only deviate into a select number of set cells. Embryonic Stem Cells are pluripotent, they can become any cell necessary in the body.
You are being extremely closed minded, embryonic stem cells have cured people issues, and although most of them have developed grafts vs hosts disease, this is preferable over death as it is manageable, death is not.
Again, you claim that not one atheist have been able to defeat it’s scientific arguments, but the people judging that are theists, hence, they do not want their precious religion and idealisms disproved, so they will make every attempt to twist what it says to bend it to their own will, and will immediately discard any argument made against it.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.
