[quote]pat wrote:
I like how the pro-abortionists run away from the real questions, only to make an emotional appeal. Here they are again:
When does human life begin?
What is a human life?[/quote]
Exactly. I think those questions are at the very heart of the abortion debate. Unfortunately, there are no clear cut answers to those questions.[/quote]
No, there are exact un-debatable answers. It is a fact when life begins and what is human. The only debate is if some human lives are worth more than others.[/quote]
Precisely. While I do consider a zygote less valuable than a 2 year old in that I would take extraordinary measures to save the life of a 2 year old and probably not that of a zygote I believe the intentional killing of either is wrong.
[quote]pat wrote:
I like how the pro-abortionists run away from the real questions, only to make an emotional appeal. Here they are again:
When does human life begin?
What is a human life?[/quote]
Really?[/quote]
Really. That is the only real question on the table, nothing else really matters.[/quote]
Oh, sorry, I misread, those were the central questions. The first one is clear, at the conception, the second one is unaswerable.[/quote]
Metabolism
Reaction to stimuli
Unique DNA from mother and father (you know, to distinguish it from a finger nail)
[quote]forlife wrote:
Let’s say the 100 men and women were killed through a chemical agent that caused no pain or suffering. And let’s say they were an entirely self-contained community living on the top of a mountain with no outside contact.
Identically morally reprehensible?
And should the crime be punished identically?[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
forlife - Do you know how many lives in the history of the world, have been saved with embryonic stem cell therapy or research?[/quote]
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[/quote]
But some researchers want rant money so it os “promising”.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
What happened to pre-vention? What happened to pills, one of the cornerstones of womens liberation. You have public education about gays and what not, but then nothing about contraception? Maybe abortion for non-medical reasons should be a bit more expensive and preventive methods cheaper. [/quote]
Birth control pills are abortifacient. Go to your local pharmacy, ask them if you can read the paper contents they have in the pill boxes, read the fourth function of the pill. Textbook definition of abortifacient.
Plus, the reason is because with the contraception mind-set, abortion is a safety net. So, if the pills don’t work, they just have it aborted. Second, if people have to pay a lot of money to the clinics the clinics can’t do it in such high volume (they get subsidized by the government).[/quote]
I have a friend who used abortion as birth control. She had an abortion every year of high school. The last one messed her up and they weren’t sure she’d be able to have kids (she does now have a son, thank goodness). She did use condoms but there was always that “one time” they didn’t have one and she apparently just couldn’t stop her and her boyfriend from having sex (she even asked me how I could just stop in the middle and I wondered how she could NOT stop when she didn’t have any protection). In cases of rape, incest, and if the baby would not have a good quality of life or continued pregnancy would put the mother’s life at risk, are the only reasons for abortions to occur.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I haven’t read the thread, but don’t you mean pregnancies? I mean…if there is a birth, there obviously was NOT an abortion.[/quote]
Yes. should have been pregnancies. However, I attempted to correct my mistake and T-Nation just timed out and I gave up.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
In cases of rape, incest, and if the baby would not have a good quality of life or continued pregnancy would put the mother’s life at risk, are the only reasons for abortions to occur. [/quote]
Don’t take my questions as facetious, I really don’t understand the opinion though.
What if the child is the husband’s and not the attacker?
What if she gives birth to the child because she thinks it is her husband’s child, but finds out latter that it is the rapist’s child?
Incest usually being the product of force, what if the child is not the fruit of incest but a normal (man and woman not of relation) conjugal act?
What if after the child is born it is found that the child wasn’t from normal conjugal act, but the incestuous conjugal act?
What if you find out after birth that an infant won’t have a good quality of life?
What do you consider a risk to the mother’s life? I haven’t been pregnant, and I am not an OBYGN, but it seems after doing research* and reading a hundreds of posts at dooce.com that pregnancy seems to be a pretty dangerous endeavor.
Well and witnessing a few dozen births and encountering morning sickness, doesn’t seem like throwing up everyday for a few months would be a healthy option.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[/quote]
My understanding is that in 2006, Nature published promising research demonstrating a method for extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Would you support this?
Yes, but that is the main difference between first and second trimester, developed brainfunction. According to my knowledge, I might be wrong, that is the reason why the limit for most abortions is where it is. [/quote]
Why does that matter? It’s not like the kids is going to rip out quantum equations in-utero.[/quote]
You can give it any meaning you wish, that’s nevertheless the difference between mentioned trimesters. Second trimester has a chance to survive in an incubator, first trimester has no chance.[/quote]
What the hell does that have to do with anything? If something can survive in an incubator it’s ‘more human’ then if it cannot? That makes no sense. Besides, that’s a matter of technology. When incubators advance enough to more closely replicate a uterine environment, even earlier stages will be able to survive.
[/quote]
The question, which wasn’t even addressed to me, but I nontheless replied(probably shouldn’t have), was about the difference between those trimesters.
Incubators are as advanced as they can get, new technology looms further away in time if it someday materializes.
You have just to look at pictures to see that the budding life of a human being really is considerable ‘more human’ in the second trimester. [/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
I like how the pro-abortionists run away from the real questions, only to make an emotional appeal. Here they are again:
When does human life begin?
What is a human life?[/quote]
Really?[/quote]
Really. That is the only real question on the table, nothing else really matters.[/quote]
To you. [/quote]
What other questions could you ask that are equivalent to human life? Is how you ‘feel’ as important as a human life?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
forlife - Do you know how many lives in the history of the world, have been saved with embryonic stem cell therapy or research?[/quote]
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[/quote]
My understanding is that in 2006, Nature published promising research demonstrating a method for extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Would you support this?[/quote]
Well, which embryos? I am against embryo farms as well. And getting stem cells from one in utero would be really difficult.
I am not totally against embryonic stem cell research, so long as the embryos are obtained through miscarriage or so other means where it would not have any shot at surviving any way. I am totally against creating them on a petri dish.
Yes, but that is the main difference between first and second trimester, developed brainfunction. According to my knowledge, I might be wrong, that is the reason why the limit for most abortions is where it is. [/quote]
Why does that matter? It’s not like the kids is going to rip out quantum equations in-utero.[/quote]
You can give it any meaning you wish, that’s nevertheless the difference between mentioned trimesters. Second trimester has a chance to survive in an incubator, first trimester has no chance.[/quote]
What the hell does that have to do with anything? If something can survive in an incubator it’s ‘more human’ then if it cannot? That makes no sense. Besides, that’s a matter of technology. When incubators advance enough to more closely replicate a uterine environment, even earlier stages will be able to survive.
[/quote]
The question, which wasn’t even addressed to me, but I nontheless replied(probably shouldn’t have), was about the difference between those trimesters.
Incubators are as advanced as they can get, new technology looms further away in time if it someday materializes.
You have just to look at pictures to see that the budding life of a human being really is considerable ‘more human’ in the second trimester. [/quote]
Ever heard of the ‘test tube baby’?[/quote]
No, are they any good? Okay, if you don’t mind, I’ll discontinue the discussion for my part, since I haven’t really anything else to add. Abortion isn’t a problematic issue here and the numbers have been in a slow decline for a long time, as they should.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[/quote]
My understanding is that in 2006, Nature published promising research demonstrating a method for extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Would you support this?[/quote]
Well, which embryos? I am against embryo farms as well. And getting stem cells from one in utero would be really difficult.
I am not totally against embryonic stem cell research, so long as the embryos are obtained through miscarriage or so other means where it would not have any shot at surviving any way. I am totally against creating them on a petri dish. [/quote]
What’s your opinion on surplus embryos resulting from fertilization?
Yes, but that is the main difference between first and second trimester, developed brainfunction. According to my knowledge, I might be wrong, that is the reason why the limit for most abortions is where it is. [/quote]
Why does that matter? It’s not like the kids is going to rip out quantum equations in-utero.[/quote]
You can give it any meaning you wish, that’s nevertheless the difference between mentioned trimesters. Second trimester has a chance to survive in an incubator, first trimester has no chance.[/quote]
What the hell does that have to do with anything? If something can survive in an incubator it’s ‘more human’ then if it cannot? That makes no sense. Besides, that’s a matter of technology. When incubators advance enough to more closely replicate a uterine environment, even earlier stages will be able to survive.
[/quote]
The question, which wasn’t even addressed to me, but I nontheless replied(probably shouldn’t have), was about the difference between those trimesters.
Incubators are as advanced as they can get, new technology looms further away in time if it someday materializes.
You have just to look at pictures to see that the budding life of a human being really is considerable ‘more human’ in the second trimester. [/quote]
Ever heard of the ‘test tube baby’?[/quote]
No, are they any good? Okay, if you don’t mind, I’ll discontinue the discussion for my part, since I haven’t really anything else to add. Abortion isn’t a problematic issue here and the numbers have been in a slow decline for a long time, as they should.[/quote]
K, see ya…
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Embryonic stem cell research has yet to help one single person, in the history of the entire world. The embryonic cells can NOT be shut down and therefore result in tumors. The target disease may or may not be terminated but a life is extinguished along with the original patient. The last confirmed numbers I was told [five years ago] where nearing thousands of individuals alive today, because of Adult stem cell therapy. Zero lives with ESC therapy versus a science that is proving itself in ASC therapy. Which one would you choose?
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, and more importantly I don’t know how many lives would be saved in the future. When scientists say there are promising lines of research that can only be conducted with embryonic stem cells, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I also think we should explore other avenues, and see which proves most beneficial over time. If embryonic cell research doesn’t deliver significant benefits after a reasonable period of time, I think it should be stopped.[/quote]
[/quote]
My understanding is that in 2006, Nature published promising research demonstrating a method for extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Would you support this?[/quote]
Well, which embryos? I am against embryo farms as well. And getting stem cells from one in utero would be really difficult.
I am not totally against embryonic stem cell research, so long as the embryos are obtained through miscarriage or so other means where it would not have any shot at surviving any way. I am totally against creating them on a petri dish. [/quote]
What’s your opinion on surplus embryos resulting from fertilization?[/quote]
I am against in vitro vehemently it too is an abominable practice that should be stopped. Now as to said ‘surplus’ babies? Well it depends on their fate, I guess if they are going to be killed anyway, the lesser of two evils would be to at least use them for research, but to me it smack of Dr. Mengele practices, so I don’t know that a respectful burial wouldn’t be better. No matter what you do here, it’s all disgustingly immoral. Further, there is just no need. For all the ‘promise’ of embryonic stem cells only adult stem cells have yielded actual results and the promise of more. Why not stick with the research that works? I mean embryonic stem cell research have been going on some 15 years and has yet to yield shit…Why beat a dead horse?
Okay, if you don’t mind, I’ll discontinue the discussion for my part, since I haven’t really anything else to add. Abortion isn’t a problematic issue here and the numbers have been in a slow decline for a long time, as they should.