Great story...
and more proof that we do not need embryonic stem cells...
These stem cells were taken from the patients own bodies...
Still waiting for ONE story showing how embryonic stem cells cure anything...
The only proof we have is lying Democrats during speeches...
Lets be honest, this is all connected to keeping abortion alive...
Just like global warming, it has nothing to do with science or facts...
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Diabetics cured by stem-cell treatment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
Game,
Why do you hate Michael J Fox?
Would you deny this man his hope? Everyone knows reality has no room in this debate when there is heartstring tugging to be done!
If there's a chance Christopher Reeve can be raised from the dead and made to walk, damnit, we need to keep hope alive and kill as many embryos as necessary, Game, you heartless s.o.b.
Marshall,
Now you know it's not technically killing, if they are raised for harvesting (we truly are a sick nation!). Damn, I feel dirty. I’m taking a break now, I think I’m fixing to barf.
God help us, please.
I make a distinction between federal funding of embryonic stemcell research, and those who want to craft ambiguous language to ban it.
As for the federal funding, it is completely unnecessary. If that line of research was viable, venture capitalists would be pouring money into it without the assistance of the government. Researchers in the government grant rat-race have gotten brainless celebrities on board, but all of the hope and good intentions and tax dollars spent in the world will not change the status of concrete evidence.
On the other hand, politicians who want to prohibit stemcell research because of an irrational belief embryos have souls, ceteris paribus, will receive no support from me on that account. The religious right is completely off the sanity wagon here.
Game, sorry for being dense, but can you please explain the connection between embrionic stem-cell research and abortion?
Is it anything like the connection between embrionic stem-cell research and making it illegal to have sex unless it's a married couple solely for the purpose of procreation?
Jim,
Do people knock you down as soon as they meet you or do you have to say something as prevoking and as stupid as you just said?
Whether or not an embryo has a soul is a whole other debate that can never be concluded with any satisfaction on either side. You can’t prove a fully mature human being has a soul, much less an embryo, so someone erring on the side of caution is not necessarily irrational.
blamin--
So you really believe embryos have memories, sensations, beliefs, imaginations, and so forth? If not, what kind of soul can you possibly be talking about?
Jason,
I said it can’t be proved one way or the other, so it doesn’t really matter what I think.
But just for the sake of argument, it’s possible that embryo’s have souls. Perhaps their souls are in a state of suspension just waiting to be imprinted with sensations, memories, etc. Perhaps they are imprinted with sensations from the moment of life, sensations and memories that are lost as time goes on. Perhaps they’re much like an 8 month and 29 day old fetus, or a comatose patient, or a Terry Schiavo. Of course that’s just pure supposition.
There’s just no way of knowing, and that’s my point. That embryo has the spark of life, and I’m uncomfortable snuffing it out. Do you think that’s irrational?
Blamin, then don't snuff it out. Nobody says that's irrational thought. Many, many others don't share your belief. Why should they be bound by it?
if you make human life cheep and that an embryo is not a life but stuff...that help the liberal abortion crowd...damn am I smart...
Uh, not so much.
Jim,
I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying "if it's your opinion it's not life you should be able to snuff it?" I do know there's no hard science proving embryonic stem cell research is beneficial. And as Jason pointed out, why force taxpayers to fund it?
Regardless, merely because you disagree with a certain opinion, dosen't justify ignoring said opinion. Smacks of realitivism doesn't it?
Jason,
I realize it's a slippery slope using the "you can't prove it - so don't do it" argument. But like I said "for the sake of argument".
I think I know your beliefs on religion, but is it a legitament argument to discount any argument grounded in religous beliefs, in your opinion? Please don't make the mistake of classifying all religous beliefs as fanatical, that's too easy.
Regardless, my argument is not necessarily grounded in religion, I just happen to believe life begins at conception. No I'm not a biologist or doctor, that's just my belief. I do know many from both proffessions and their beliefs on life, souls ect. are about evenly split. An interesting side-note. Most who believe there's no sanctity of life until birth are left leaning, while those who believe life starts somewhere between conception and birth are about 2/3's right leaning vs. 1/3 left leaning. Just a meaningless anecdotal observation, but interesting.
Jason and others,
Whether embryos have memories, sensations, beliefs, imaginations, and so forth is irrelevant to the debate over their humanity. They exist through the activity designed to bring about a new human life. They don't just magically appear. If no one engaged in intercourse, which is the activity designed to bring about new human life, then there would be no embryos to worry about. So since they are brought into existence by the action designed for procreation, and since they embryos created by that action will become fully formed elderly people seeking a retirement home in Florida or Arizona, they are, by designe and definition, human beings endowed by their Creator with the usual inalienable rights (or is it "UNalienable"? I always confuse the two) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As I continue to maintain, to condescend to an embryo is really no different than the same attitude toward blacks or women. In this case, one is basing the personhood of an individual on size and age rather than sex or race. But it is every bit as wrong to do so. We all go through that stage of development. That we are devoid of memories, sensations, beliefs, imaginations, and so forth is only due to the stage at which one is at. So what? If one is rendered unconscious, all those things are suspended. Is one less than a person for the period one is unconscious? Of course not. So those characteristics cannot be characteristics of personhood. The only characteristic necessary is that one is the product of two persons of opposite sexes who have united in intercourse. There is no science or biology that disputes this salient fact. None. The best one can hope for is subjective interpretation, and that is no different than what we see in the KKK, Nazis or other supremist groups.
This being said, it should be, but probably won't be, obvious to those like Jim, that to kill an embryo is the same abhorent activity as abortion. Morning after pills are abortion pills for this reason, that they prevent the attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall, thus causing it's death. To say that this happens naturally all the time is more comparable to anyone dropping dead after a life of relatively great health. We can't know the reason the woman's body rejected the embryo or why the embryo simply didn't attach. But it is a natural event just as is a death by natural causes.
I'll say it again: it is just as wrong to use the size and age of these PEOPLE to justify their killing for research as it would be to use race or gender for the same purpose. If there is a belief that my opinion would change if I or a loved one was in need, then know this: I would sooner die and allow my loved one to die than to save our lives in such a selfish way as sacrificing an innocent and vulnerable person for my account. Of course if anyone here wishes to volunteer, that's a totally different story.
Good points Marshall. You picked right up on my disjointed attempt at making the suspended conscious argument.
I guess you realize that you're making many people very uncomfortable. That's a good thing. It's high time people started examining this issue from a 360o degree perspective.
Peel the onion!
Marshall, that's your opinion, your belief, and your choice. It's not mine. It's not the opinion, belief, or choice of many, many people.
Again, why should we be bound by your belief?
Blamin, to disagree with your opinion is not to ignore it. Because you have an opinion, I am somehow obligated to embrace it? I think not.
Jim
right back at you. Now, where does that leave us? You have your opinion, and I have mine.
So what next? I guess that means we have to actually debate the issue and attempt to influence our legislators.
Simply stating "that's your opinion, not mine" adds nothing to the debate, other than stating the obvious (you didn't go to school with Vittal, did you?)
So what is your opinion, other than you disagree with Marshall and myself?
Do you think we should have gov't funded embryonic stem cell research? If so, Why?
There's been a few damn good points made against your view, can you address those issues, or are we in store for another "that's your opinion" blurb?
disapointed to see how easily everyone is fooled by the pro-abortion crowd...this is clearly a way to cheapen life...
and there is no proof EMBRYONIC stem cells cure or do anything...it has only been adult cells that have caused treatment
Jim,
You have a fallacious argument. Say I believe that Liberals aren't human and don't have a right to live. Why should I and others that believe that be bound by your beliefs that you are a human being and have a right to live?
This is the reason we have laws. Now you don't seem to want to obey laws that restrict you, but you are plenty willing to slap thought police laws on people you disagree with. Do you see what a piece of garbage you are?
"Do you think that’s irrational?"
Yes. If faced with a choice of destroying a human embryo or prolonging the life of a family member 10 years, I'd save the family member.
Even better, if I had to destroy 10,000 embryos to prolong my life 12 months, I would do it.
If human embryos have a right to life, then we should all be vegetarians, since many animals at least have some degree of sentience, which is more than can be said for an embryo. But we repeatedly kill animals for our pleasure. How in this context can the destruction of human embryos be off limits? The ends of embryonic stemcell research justify the means, and if the ends don't justify the means, I don't know what does.
Blamin, my opinion is that a blastocyst is not a human being. It has the potential under certain circumstances to become human, but then so do sperm cells on a sheet.
The federal government funds research for AIDS which I assume you are against since AIDS is a gay disease caused by anti-biblical behavior. It also funds things that I oppose, but that's a price I'm willing to pay in order to get things that I favor funded.
The definition of the exact moment that life begins comes from Genesis 2:7 -- The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV)
That's a good point Jim. And from that first man into whom God breathed life, all human life has descended. It has been passed on to Cain and Abel and Seth and all of Adam's descendants. This human life was passed by uniting his sperm with the ovum of Eve and a new human came into existence. That sperm needed the ovum to have potential for human life. It did not have that potential by itself. You come so close, Jim, then you jump off the cliff.
Jason,
The difference is that we're talking about a human being that has not yet progressed beyond the embryonic stage. An animal will only become an animal when it is still in IT'S embryonic stage, thus the comparison doesn't work.
But that's where your argument goes wrong. You distinguish between a person and an embryo. I'm saying that by virtue of it's existence and how it came to be, it is a person in the embryonic stage of development. You are in the adult stage. Two different stages of development, but both human beings, or persons. By stating your position as you do, you are depriving a person of it's "personhood" because of it's size and age in exactly the same way the KKK deprives a black of his personhood because of his color. A person in the embryonic stage should not be so deprived for reasons such as a lack of memories, sensations, beliefs, imaginations, and so forth, any more than a black should be so deprived due to his color. Again, if someone wishes to volunteer his own life for the benefit of saving yours or the lives of your loved ones, so be it. The person still in the embryonic stage cannot make such a sacrifice by choice. Thus, you are exploiting a person who cannot defend himself.
One more for Jim:
You can disagree and believe what you like all day long. It helps if your belief has some kind of scientific support. It doesn't. You just choose to belief that which isn't true for whatever benefit you feel exists. My argument is wholly supported by science as I don't believe you can find a biology book that can dispute the contention that a human being is a human being from the moment that sperm joins with the egg. Just can't be done. The most appalling and shameful aspect of the whole debate regarding embryonic stem cells or abortion is that this issue is ignored. I can't see how they've allowed these situations to occur without first settling the issue of when human life begins.
Marshal said,
"My argument is wholly supported by science as I don't believe you can find a biology book that can dispute the contention that a human being is a human being from the moment that sperm joins with the egg. Just can't be done."
Whoa! Wait a minute. This is your scientific proof, justification that your belief is truth?
You're claiming to "win" the debate by saying that "no biology book can dispute the contention that a human being is human from the moment, etc., etc."
I've never heard of a biology book that has ever tried to do that. You're implying that the absence of a contrary argument scientifically supports the assertion.
This is pretty much like saying that no book on philosophy has ever disputed that 2+2=5 therefore it is proven true. This is truly absurd logic.
Jim,
I'll speak more slowly...
"I've never heard of a biology book that has ever tried to do that."
Of course you haven't. That's what I'm saying.
"This is truly absurd logic."
It would be if I said what you thought I said. What's more absurd is that you DID think I said what you thought I said.
"You're implying that the absence of a contrary argument scientifically supports the assertion."
No I'm not. I'm saying that basic biology teaches that a species has reproduced once that ovum is fertilized. It teaches that that moment is the first moment of that specie's development. It teaches that at that moment it IS another of its species. It DOESN'T teach that it becomes that species at some later point in it's development.
Here's more absurdity: That bit about absurd logic I added as an after thought and absurdly placed it in the middle of my comments. I didn't realize it until after I posted it. Oh well.
Marshall said,
"I'm saying that basic biology teaches that a species has reproduced once that ovum is fertilized. It teaches that that moment is the first moment of that specie's development. It teaches that at that moment it IS another of its species."
I'm not sure I would agree with you on that. If two squirrels copulate and an ovum is fertilized, there are still only two squirrels until the offspring is born. How can one say a species has reproduced when you start with two and you still have two? To me, that isn't "reproduced." I mean to reproduce, you'd have to have more than the two you started with, wouldn't you?
"If two squirrels copulate and an ovum is fertilized, there are still only two squirrels until the offspring is born."
Absolutely false!!! This is really stupid. The exact point is that once that egg is fertilized there is now a third. Just because it is microscopic does not diminish it's existence. Just because a human embryo is microscopic does not diminish it's humanity. This is how we fuckin' get here!!! It is how humanity continues through history. It is a person at his/her exact starting point in history and life. You are disagreeing with absolute truth and fact. It is like lighting yourself on fire and insisting you are not burning. Have some freakin' honor!!
"Absolute truth and fact"
Oh really?
In What science book will I find this absolute truth and fact written?
Pick one Jim. But keep in mind that I am now well aware that it won't make any difference to you. You prefer to pretend that there is some "gray area" in this debate. If you can't discern truth from the facts about human reproduction, I suggest you get fixed. You are simply denying what is.
No, you show me one. Why would it be incumbant on ME to produce the evidence to prove me wrong? That's another of your absurd notions.
I don't pretend there are "gray areas" in this debate. I assert it. Otherwise it isn't a debate, is it? That's why it's called "debate.". Seems to me philosophers have been debating the issue of when "life" begins for thousands of years. When were you appointed the arbitrator of the debate?
This isn't supposed to be an arguement about reproduction. Reproduction is off topic and there is no disagreement about the reproduction of organisms. The debate is about when "life" begins.
"Why would it be incumbant on ME to produce the evidence to prove me wrong?"
How about incumbant on you to produce evidence to prove you are right? YOU'RE the one with the stupid squirrel analogy. Jeez-louise! If the damn squirrel is impregnated, of freakin' course there would be three squirrels! What a fuckin' stupid thing to say!
Human life began when the first humans began, for freakin' pete's sake! It's been continuing through every descendant ever since. It's passed down from one set of parents to their children from the moment of conception just like they passed down their chromosomes and your parents passed down your penchant for inane points of view.
So the debate isn't about when life begins, it's about IF someone becomes a person at some point later than conception. There is NO scientific evidence to support the contention. NONE. Find some if you think there is. You know I read whatever idiotic links you post that don't support your arguments. I'll read whatever you have that you think supports this. It'll be time wasted, but it might give me a laugh. I'll wait here.
Right about what? You are all over the place.
There are only two squirrels until I see three squirrels. I don't see a third squirrel until it is born. Reproduction is a process, not an event, that isn't over until the third squirrel is born. That's science.
You get a hundred people to look at two squirrels and see how many you can get to tell you there are three.
You can argue this point for the next five years. It's beside the point as far as I am concerned because the argument is not if squirrels have reproduced. The debate is whether or not a blastocyst is a human being that has all the rights of a living, breathing, born human being.
The question of whether a blastocyst is a human being, in my mind is philosophical, not biological. I believe you will find millions of people in this country who agree that this is a philosophical question.
Legally, in most states and in most instances, blastocysts and more developed embryos and fetuses do not have a legal standing as a living human. Go figure how the law apparently does not accept your "truth."
Maybe this is all about YOUR definition of "life." Of course a live fetus is living. Nobody denies that. When is a living fetus a human being?
My reference to Genesis is that Adam's life began when he took his first breath. Philosophically, I think that this could apply to all humans.
You can disagree, and I respect that. Too bad the same can not be said of you. What's the point of debating with someone who already knows the absolute truth?
"What's the point of debating with someone who already knows the absolute truth?'
Now you're wisin' up!
But seriously, folks....
Jim,
You're the one who brought up the squirrels. But by your logic, if you don't see all the people in the country all at once, there's only you and the frog in your pocket populating the nation. Just because you can't see the microcsopic squirrel developing within the mother squirrel, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And in some states, killing a pregnant woman is the same as killing two people. The law is not the issue. If law determines right and wrong or morality in general, then slavery was just peachy until they changed the law. Was it? Or was it just as wrong then as it is now?
But yes, it is a philosophical question. The problem is, your philosophy is for shit. You base it on what exactly? Mine is based on the clear evidence of human reproduction and the continuing thread of life bequeathed by two people to their offspring. It is human subjectivity that has defined personhood away from the scientific and biological truth. Hardly something upon which to hang your hat.
As for your Genesis description, Adam was created fully formed by some interpretations. Are all people short of adulthood less than persons? Others take a more evolutionary tact, but use Adam as a metaphor for humanity. But still, the point of that verse is that GOD caused life to begin. It doesn't make any exception for size or age. That, again, is frail human subjectivity.
Your argument has been thoroughly shot to hell. I doubt you can understand that, either.
"The debate is about when "life" begins."
I don't think so. An embryo is life, yes. A person, it is not.
Jason,
I agree with you. You said it better.
Marshall, your Genesis reference doesn't make any sense. The point is that Adam became a living human being when he took his first breath.
You haven't shot anything. You're using a scatter gun hoping to hit something. So far, no luck.
My "philosophy is for shit"? Great argument.
Jason,
To say an embryo is not a person is a subjective statement based on some arbitrary line of demarcation. There is no way to accurately judge the exact moment when the embryo has crossed that line. Who on earth has the authority and expertise to draw the line and monitor it's crossing? As I stated before, how is such determination any different from other arbitrary factors such as race or gender? Just as in those cases, an embryo is a person because it is. One human has no right or authority to determine the humanity of another. All experiments, research, or treatments that risk the life of people still in the embryo stage of their lives should cease. Period. Seek an adult volunteer willing to sacrifice his/her life to save yours or your family's. Don't force the most innocent and vulnerable to sacrifice for you.
Jim,
"...your philosophy is for shit." is not an argument. It is a fact supported by the arguments that followed and preceded that statement.
My Genesis reference is perfectly sensible. My bad was assuming a sensible person opposed me. So I'll try this again and if necessary, you'll just have to find an adult to explain it to you.
"---the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2:7
This simply describes the creation and animation of the first man. That God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils is not to highlight Adam's first breath, but to highlight the fact that Adam received the gift of life from God. Of course he would start breathing at this point. Duh. What a newsflash. That's not what makes him a human being or a person. An infant before birth does not breath. From a variety of trauma one will cease to breath for a period of time. So freakin' what? None of it matters to the person's humanity.
At the same time, apparently none of this basic logic matters to you. You insist on maintaining abortion on demand and wholesale sacrificing of human beings in the earliest stages of their existence to provide for your personal comfort and health. I suggest volunteering yourself. Think of the good for society when researchers uncover the cause of your dementia.
Dear Mr. your philosophy is shit,
Dictionary defines infant thusly:
A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk. "An infant before birth" is nonsensical.
Also, Mr. your philosophy is shit, the process of invitro fertilization necessarily creates thousands of blastocysts which are unused. What's up with the leftovers? Frozen eternally? Is this killing them? Destroyed when no longer needed? Mass murder?
Should we ban IVF? Doesn't it involve the killing of thousands of innocent human beings?
Also, Mr. your philosophy is shit, I take the Bible literally. It says God breathed into the nostrils of Adam, "and the man became a living being." It doesn't say, "and that's how Mr. your philosophy is shit came into being." It says the man became a living being.
Also, Mr. your philosophy is shit, you said, "There is no way to accurately judge the exact moment when the embryo has crossed that line." and "One human has no right or authority to determine the humanity of another."
And yet, that is exactly what you are doing.
Jim
Your argument might make sense - if - you actually observed a women with life in her womb.
I have to ask the question. Why do you people try to argue so passionately, that life does not exist until birth? Any women I know that is pregnant will argue otherwise.
I mean, the argument can't be scientifically answered, so why the imppassioned "no life until birth" argument?
The revelent question is when? Is it at the moment of conception, or, is it at some other debateble point? One week? One month? One trimester? Five months? 8 months and 29 days? The moment of birth?
I know women that will argue the "flutter" of life after a few weels.
I think common sense tells us when. All the rest is just self justification for doing the expediant versus the difficult.
Jim, you ignorant slut,
"And yet, that is exactly what you are doing."
More rank stupidity. I've maintained that human life is continuous from parents to child and you're saying I'M changing things? What a butthead! I'm doing exactly the opposite! Would you please pass the bong, you freakin' bogart!
I just reprinted Gen 2:7 from my NIV. If you can't make head or tails of it, consult your priest or pastor. Ask him to use small words.
Did you read this, mushmind?:
"All experiments, research, or treatments that risk the life of people still in the embryo stage of their lives should cease."
That SHOULD have answered in advance your question regarding in vitro.
As to your oh so helpful definition of the word "infant", if you want to play semantics, find someone else. The God who's Word you claim to take literally might not make the distinction between an infant just out of it's mother, or the same child just before it's little head pushes through to the light. YOU don't have the intelligence to draw the line, much less the authority or scientific support for your arguments.
I've also have to ask...why all the hostility? Why does a contrary opinion piss you off so?
Of course that was aimed at Pre Marshall Art 4/17/07 10:33pm
Blamin,
Who is this question aimed at:
"...why all the hostility?"
If it's me, it's Jim. If it's Jim, it's also Jim. That's why.
Blamin, there's no debate anymore, just insults, a certain sign that the insulter has lost both the debate and his continence.
Jim,
You haven't been debating. You've been acting like John Cleese when Michael Palin comes to have an argument. You've yet to counter any of my points, but rather, you've simply denied their validity without supportive evidence. When you can do that, then you can say you are debating.
Mr. your philosophy is shit said,
"You've yet to counter any of my points, but rather, you've simply denied their validity without supportive evidence."
Talk about projection!
Just more truth that you obviously are unable to dispute.
Post a Comment