RunRyder RC
 10  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 8 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7      8     NEXT    >> ] 4544 views
HelicopterOff Topics › Possible Stem Cell good news.
11-29-2007 06:53 PM  10 years agoPost 101
tarro

rrNovice

At my Computer

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If a 1 day old baby and a fertalized egg were in a burning building and you could only save one of them, which one would you save and why?

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 07:03 PM  10 years agoPost 102
spog

rrVeteran

Ontario, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

When does life begin?
The US supreme court has already made that decision, as already mentioned Roe V Wade
Why does US government policy regarding stem cell research not coincide with the supreme court's decision on abortion? It could be due to religious views, scientific views, fear of opposition to feminism, fear of genetic research, etc..

Unfortunately the US is way ahead of Canada in that they do extend children's rights to the unborn child. In Canada a fetus at any stage has no rights whatsoever, life begins at birth.

What is the UN's position?
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
Unfortunately, the UN won't define exactly when life begins.

There are valid scientific reasons for believing life begins at conception.
It is a living organism that
(1) has a metabolism
(2) grows
(3) can reproduce at some stage of its normal life process
(4) has a complete and unique set of DNA
(5) its DNA is human

This debate will go on for a long time to come.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 07:14 PM  10 years agoPost 103
tarro

rrNovice

At my Computer

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

There are valid scientific reasons for believing life begins at conception.
It is a living organism that
(1) has a metabolism
(2) grows
(3) can reproduce at some stage of its normal life process
(4) has a complete and unique set of DNA
(5) its DNA is human
Give me a brake, the only reason you care about is the 5th one. I wish no one had to have an abortion but until we take care of our own on a society level individuals will need to have abortions.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 07:18 PM  10 years agoPost 104
RonHill

rrVeteran

FLL, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

tarro

If a 1 day old baby and a fertalized egg were in a burning building and you could only save one of them, which one would you save and why?
I would save the one day old baby. That does not mean I don't value the life of the embryo. I just know the survivability of the baby is better.

If a building was burning and there was a 80 year old and a one day old...Which would you save and why?

I'd save the baby again. Just because I would save the baby does not mean I don't value the others life.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 07:22 PM  10 years agoPost 105
Crashr30

rrApprentice

DFW

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Tough subject but what about the population

Abortion, stem cells all a very tough subject. I have my opinions but here is the one question I want answered. If there were no more abortions and stem cells eventually cures all our ills or substantially improves mortality, life span and quality of life, where do we put everybody??

Ultimately some form of population control will have to take place because people will be everywhere.(See China) We are slowly conquering our natural enemy, death. When there are too many deer in an area they get diseased and die or they extend hunting season to thin out the herd. What do you do when you do not thin out the herd?

So then does the human race suffer starvation? Or will there be an anwser for that?

How do you control the population? Taxation, abortion, selection, draw straws?

I know this is a very morbid outlook but it is a question that has to be addressed potentially in this lifetime? I think ultimately what you find is there is no elegant answer to any of this the and only thing you have are opinions as to which side of the fence you are on.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 07:26 PM  10 years agoPost 106
tarro

rrNovice

At my Computer

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If a building was burning and there was a 80 year old and a one day old...Which would you save and why?
I would save the 1 day old but I would feel a sense of lose for not saving the 80 year old.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 07:54 PM  10 years agoPost 107
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

we are talking about human life,
Good, at least we're finally on the same page. Then let's stop talking about the amoeba and how it has a brain.
In regards to the fertilised embryo - it is a life form - period
There's never been disagreemtent there. But I thought you just said we were talking about what constitutes a human life. There is plenty of debate among the scientists, theologians, and philosophers of the world as to whether a fertilized egg constitutes a human life. As far as I know the only place where there's a simple answer to this complex and subtle question is here on an R/C heli forum.
our bodies destory virsus which are living organisms...
I assume you mean viruses; and if you've been to medical school as you claim, you must know that not everyone agrees that viruses are alive.
But the argument which you keep circumnavigating is WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN...
I have NOT circumnavigated any question (do you know what that word means?). I have answered by saying it's not a simple answer and I don't have a simple answer to it. Period. You can ask again and I'll tell you that again. THAT IS MY ANSWER.
all you have managed to do is just recite what people what have posted, and say it is a grey area,
Show me where I've recited what others have posted. Unlike you, I'm thinking for myself. And this IS my opinion.
no it is not..
Yes it is (now we're really getting somewhere!)
people wont accept the fact rather they try to manipulate it to fit their own agenda
You have a pretty bizarre notion of "fact".
WHAT DO YOU BELIVE THEN ?
See above - and for God's sake quit asking.
I think you are intelligent enough to see the big picture...the problem is that you're not man enough to admit that you just might be wrong here...
That's an absolutely BRILLIANT quote scatbass. I'm the one that says I DON'T KNOW. You absolutely know the simple answer to a question that defies lawmakers, scientist, theologians, and philosophers. And you think I'm not man enough to admit I'M wrong!?
A fertalized egg is the start of life. To me, that is when it changes from 'stuff' to being alive.
That's great. You have every right to that opinion.
The second they meet the cells divide and start to grow; Life starts. That is why I consider life to start at conception.
Not quite true. As I understand typically several sperm reach the egg, and in a sense begin to prepare the egg for the one that eventually succeeds in fertilizing it. Even then it doesn't immediately divide. But all that is beside the point. Some consider that a human life, and some don't.
Can you agree that once an sperm and egg combine that the organism starts to grow?
Of course. Is this your first step in a debate using the Socratic method that's supposed to paint me into a corner? Good luck.
i do think that this debate as to when it becomes life, islife etc is just a pointless argument for some to justify killing their kids...
Good theory, but I don't have kids. Never had, never will. Never got anyone pregnant either.
as i said in my post, once it becomes a fertalised egg it is a life, it takes on a different identity,
Well there you have it then. If you said it I guess we can stop any debate now. I'll contact the supreme court and let them know.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 07:59 PM  10 years agoPost 108
Bad Karma

rrVeteran

UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

well it is a life, although simplistic at this stage.. ( we recognise the Amoeba - 1 cell micro organism as life )
Not comparable, the Amoeba is capable of survival in the outside world, a fetus or a glob of undifferentiated cells that just happen to have human DNA in them cant.
i am not against progress, at all, cos if a cure for cancer came out tomorrow i wouldbe first in the queue. but what has to be taken into consideration is stem cells the only way ? when we can map the genetic code ?
Thats the thing that annoys me about the religous lot, they hear "stem cell" and immediatly think "embryo" and then "abortion"

Stem cells are the only way to do this research, its stem cell research....., but that doesnt mean they are from embryos, and if they are not from embryos then there is no reasonable moral objection, so there is no reason to ban it, or try to restrict it.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 10:04 PM  10 years agoPost 109
MattJen

rrElite Veteran

UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

[quote]Good theory, but I don't have kids. Never had, never will. Never got anyone pregnant either.

mmmm now i can uderstand why your comments are the way they are,
having never been a parent and not wanting to explain your closed opionion on childeren...unborn or born

having never seen nurses and doctors fight to save your wife and unborn child you have no understanding,and no experience, you are just going by what is on paper,i am coming from the other side, having experienced it, and having 2 diasbled childeren as well when the doctors told my wife to abort them cos they woldnot survive past 2yrs, my eldest is 10 yrs all be it in a specilist school, and my other son who was not supposed to live long either, now flying model hellies, really says screw the scientific community who look at facts and figures and formula's and then base decisions and theories on that, yet people take what they say as gospel without looking at it for themselves.
i have always learnt you cannot control life in a lab, life will find a way ----
if i had followed what the doctors and proffesionals had said i would have killed 2 sons who despite their certiain limitations can go on to fufill a reasonable meaningful life, ok they wont be a pilot or the next einstein or maybe work in McDonalds, but if they can appreciatle life and treat their negihbour with respect then i will be happy with that... a simple life..

commenting on what is life when it begins without ever have experiencing your partner knowing she is pregnant from Day 1, really does make your posts null and void...

you can pick them apart and tear them to shreds, but i have experience which speaks volumes,,

i know how to fly an airoplane, i have flown many sims, and i have been a passenger in the cockpit, from what i have observed and read, i could fly one, but would you feel comfortable with me teaching and telling you about the pros and cons without ever having flight experience.... probably not.

Similar in your case having never experienced bringing up childeren, having never experienced cutting the cord at birth, having never experienced the bond between mother and child, having never experienced seeing and feeling that baby kick inside your wife/girlfrind - sorry you have no experience or empathy on what is an emotive debate,

havig never experienced any of the things above, i can understand why you say it is not clear cut, you speak from a lack of experience.

as i said, all this debate does is MAKE LIFE EASY TO DISGUARD FOR THOSE WHO ACCIDENTLY FALL PREGNANT BUT WANT A CAREER, A SELFISH ATTITUDE WHICH CHRACTERISES THE HUMAN RACE..I appreciate some kids may be the products of rape, but is it the childs fault ? NO, can the child be given up for adoption ? YES,

Reason i comment on that emotional subject i have a friend who was raped and has a 19yr old daughter who was a product of that sad situation..

People will come and say it is my right to do this, none of your business, yeah they are right, but who defends a life which can fight for itself. just because we class it as a ball of cells.

you can justify your argument, but we will have to agree to disagree

All The Best

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 10:17 PM  10 years agoPost 110
MattJen

rrElite Veteran

UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Not comparable, the Amoeba is capable of survival in the outside world, a fetus or a glob of undifferentiated cells that just happen to have human DNA in them cant.

only in certain conditions,

a fetus or a glob of undifferentiated cells that just happen to have human DNA in them cant

no it cannot i have to agree there, the reason for mentioning the amoeba was even though it is a simple single cell, its makeup and parts make it a very complex form of life,and that by us is considered is the simplist form of life.

A feutus is far more complex than the amoeba, it is not just a ball of glob that happens to have human DNA in, it is far more complex than that, and if you have ever seen a cell you would understand my comment, let alone a ballycist, the fact that in that single fertislised cell is a blueprint that contains everyting from colour of eyes, height,emotions,and parts of the genetic make up of both parents likes and dislikes, in my opinion makes it worth saving at all costs.... but that is coming from a parent who has lost 3 childeren told he was gonna loose another 2, but ended up with 4 lovely childeren, who despite their unique personalities and challenging circumstances made all the worry and heart ache worht fighting for...

All The Best

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 10:23 PM  10 years agoPost 111
MattJen

rrElite Veteran

UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

[quote]Stem cells are the only way to do this research, its stem cell research....., but that doesnt mean they are from embryos, and if they are not from embryos then there is no reasonable moral objection, so there is no reason to ban it, or try to restrict it.

as someone said just cos we can and think we can do it, we have never stopped to think should we ???

i am not religious person, at all, i have seen my grandfather waste away taken away a piece at a time, until he became an empty shell,and i can rememer him helping me pt up shelves when i first got married, and helping me with my helicopters, etc,

incredibly sad....

what we are debtaing here and it keeps getting lost, is when is it life ? that to me is simple, from the time the sperm and ova meet and the chromosomes from both parents unite that to me is life.....

If a 1 day old baby and a fertalized egg were in a burning building and you could only save one of them, which one would you save and why?

it is hypothetical situation to which there is no right answer, they both are valuble to different people, to someone who has childeren you would save the baby, but to someone who is desperate to be pregnant and experience the feeling of nurturing and caring for a embryo they would probably go for the egg.. but a fertlised egg would already be inside a human anyway...

All The Best

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 10:56 PM  10 years agoPost 112
spog

rrVeteran

Ontario, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Matt, who do we have to thank for women's right to abortion? What's your wife's opinion on abortion rights for women?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 11:04 PM  10 years agoPost 113
scatbass

rrNovice

Hiram, GA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

spog

Your question makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the context of the conversation...unless you want to clarify? What does a "womans (legal) right to abortion" have to do with when life begins? Why does his wifes opinion on these rights have any bearing on his thought process?

I'll speak for myself...my wife is pro-life, anti abortion. What does that have to do with my views???



Mike

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 11:07 PM  10 years agoPost 114
Bad Karma

rrVeteran

UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The only reasonable objection to doing the research was that there where ethical issues with the source of the cells, thats no longer an issue, stem cells can be taken from adults, so the abortion issue is not relevant to stem cells any more.

There is no ethical dilema now, and it would be unethical to not do the research, intentionally stopping research that will most likely eventually cure some major deseases is not ethical once the only ethical argument against the research is no longer an issue.

The only ethical issue (not much of one) that could be used is the fall back one, of "you shouldnt play god" the thing is, the researchers are not playing, and second thats working on the assumption that there is a god to be playing at, which is only an opinion.

Usually the "shouldnt play god" bunch do not know enough about biology or chemistry to fill a postage stamp, they are generally very ignorant of these fields, and their ignorance makes them mistrust anything they dont understand.

That has happened here with stem cell research, if you ask them "what do you imediatly think when you hear the words stem cell?" I bet most would imediatly say abortion like a knee jerk reaction, because they have not bothered to keep up with developments in the research, if they even bothered to look at any of it ever.

eg Bush when told of this breakthrough of getting stem cells from adults, imediatly started talking of banning it, and people didnt even hear the word adult.

Now this ethical hurdle is gone, there is no valid reason to not continue the research, any reason given so far has been complete BS based on ignorance and knee jerk anti abortion reactions.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 11:19 PM  10 years agoPost 115
spog

rrVeteran

Ontario, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Karma
That's why this new scientific development is such a big deal, it removes the ethical issue completely. I think the discussion here is why it was unethical before this new breakthrough.
scatbass,
The ethics of abortion are identical to the ethics of stem cell research from fertilized embryos. When life starts is totally relevant, because that determines if abortion AND stem cell research is murder, and is violating the rights of children.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 11:23 PM  10 years agoPost 116
MasterCrasher

rrApprentice

Not sure.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here's something to think about. If destroying a stem cell is not allowing it to develop into a human life, and thats bad, then isn't not allowing every drop of your sperm to have a chance to create life the same thing. You could say the same thing about a woman every time she wastes her period, it could have been used to make a baby.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 11:34 PM  10 years agoPost 117
spog

rrVeteran

Ontario, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Crasher,
As I posted earlier the arguments for life starting at conception are:
It is a living organism that
(1) has a metabolism
(2) grows
(3) can reproduce at some stage of its normal life process
(4) has a complete and unique set of DNA
(5) its DNA is human
A sperm or an egg do not satisfy all those conditions, so it's difficult to define them as a human life. Your wording is confusing
If destroying a stem cell is not allowing it to develop into a human life
That's not the ethical issue, the issue is that some believe that destroying a stem cell is KILLING a human life. Your words assume that it's not already a human.

I also disagree with the argument that an embryo is not a human life since it can't survive on it's own. Some people see an embryo as a human on life support, no different than a hospitalized human on life support due to injury or illness.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-29-2007 11:53 PM  10 years agoPost 118
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

mmmm now i can uderstand why your comments are the way they are, having never been a parent and not wanting to explain your closed opionion on childeren...unborn or born
Yes, and now I can see where you're coming from. When you thought I had children and/or abortions you told me how my greed explained my opinion. Now that you know I've never had kids or abortions you think that explains my opinions. You're simply unable to comprehend that someone can have considered opinions rather than take the simple line fed to them by the religious right.
yet people take what they say as gospel without looking at it for themselves.
You represent the folks that think the answers are simple, obvious, and immutable. And you keep accusing me of being the closed minded one. I am the one that's aware the issues are more complex than you 1-dimensional types are willing to admit.
i have always learnt you cannot control life in a lab, life will find a way ----
if i had followed what the doctors and proffesionals had said...
Are you honestly sticking with this story that you attended medical school!? Is that what they "learnt" you there?
...but if they can appreciatle life and treat their negihbour with respect then i will be happy with that... a simple life..
The deck is stacked against them. They won't learn from their father to treat people with respect.
commenting on what is life when it begins without ever have experiencing your partner knowing she is pregnant from Day 1, really does make your posts null and void...
Wrong. It makes them unbiased - entirely unlike yours.
i know how to fly an airoplane, i have flown many sims
I too know how to fly an "airoplane" and a sailplane, and a helicopter, and a hang glider, and a paraglider, because I have flown them all - not sims. AND I can even spell them.

The rest of your post is so far from any meaningful reality it just doesn't warrant a response. It's simply ignorant and condescending.
As I posted earlier the arguments for life starting at conception are...
Those are all swell criteria for defining life - for you.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-30-2007 12:24 AM  10 years agoPost 119
spog

rrVeteran

Ontario, Canada

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

spork, don't assume that I'm on either side of this argument. I don't know when life starts and probably never will.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-30-2007 12:36 AM  10 years agoPost 120
spork

rrVeteran

Mountain View, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

spork, don't assume that I'm on either side of this argument. I don't know when life starts and probably never will.
Fair enough. Personally I don't think it's a matter of "knowing" when life begins. It's a matter of defining when life begins. Let's keep in mind that we humans invented the word and we have to decide exactly what it means. So far we haven't been able to decide whether a virus is a living organism or not.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 8 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7      8     NEXT    >> ] 4544 views
HelicopterOff Topics › Possible Stem Cell good news.
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 10  Topic Subscribe

Saturday, December 16 - 7:24 am - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online