Saved a Life!

[pittbulll]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have a question for the great scientific mind on this board . Honestly I do not know the answer Does a seed has all the genetical material that a plants has ? And if so why do we call it a seed ?[/quote]

A seed is the embryo of a plant. It has all of the genetic material required to make a plant, but it first needs to be implanted into the uterine lining of Mother Earth, which is the dirt. After which it will germinate and become a seedling, which would be the equivalent of a fetus.

Sperm are not seeds, even though we euphemistically refer to them as such (“semen” actually being the Latin word for “seed”). If it is analogous to anything in the vegetable kingdom, it would be pollen.

We create actual human “seeds” all the time, through in vitro fertilization. We can store these “baby seeds” in cryogenic stasis, for years, then plant the seeds in a healthy uterus when the time is right.

This raises an obvious ethical question. Standard procedure is to create more than one embryo, to give the prospective mother better odds of having a successful pregnancy.

So what happens to the unused embryos? Unless one wants to be Octomom and carry eight fetuses to term, one would select the healthiest implanted embryo and “thin out the seedlings” so to speak: discard the others.

One could elect to keep the other seeds on ice, paying typically 40 dollars a month for cryo fees. Conceivably (yuk yuk) one could donate the excess embryos to infertile women…or sell them, I suppose.

You see why this is a sticky ethical issue. Depending on how you look at it, one’s options for in vitro fertilization include mass murder and human trafficking.

Of course, for most people, the disposal of unused embryos poses an ethical problem no more daunting than would a late menstrual period, which very likely was an unimplanted embryo getting flushed naturally out of the body.
[/quote]

that is more or less what my point is , I think In no other aspect is a Undeveloped resource considered to be farther developed than common sense tell us it is .

This is the slippery slope of Catholicism .

[KneeDragger_79]

Many apologies for the slow reply. I am quite busy as a stay at home father with one functional arm! ; )

You need to work on your editing skills, as do I imho. As a rule, I try to use a word program to cut and paste the portion I am quoting. It seems to help a neurotic gimp like myself. Hope my advice helps.

You complained about how I provided an “addled mess of a post” and provided me with one to match? ; ) jaa jaa jaa

[quote]smh_23 wrote: I don’t have the time to wade through this addled mess of a post, so I’ll just stick with this excerpt right here.

I am not able to speak for[/quote] Yet you ARE speaking for them! [quote]smh_23 wrote:
"all the kids [you] know who can think without jerking off [Aside: do you have hidden cameras set up in their bedrooms, or are you just taking their word for it? Cause I’ve got news for you][/quote] No, it is rather easy to tell when people are lying, especially children. There are simple cues that determine when a person lies. Children always show when they are being dishonest. Ask any grade school teacher if you don’t believe me. The kids who come into school knowing how to lie and get away with it will always be the troublemakers as they grow.

Deceit is a trait that can ONLY be taught by another person. My wife once taught a young boy who lied like it was no big deal with no effort. He actually cost a friend of ours his job as librarian. She currently teaches at a charter school and no longer has any connection with the young kid. [quote]smh_23 wrote: and have a mind more powerful [than me]." What I am able to do is to support my contention–that the human sex drive is simply far too powerful to be overcome on a societal or global scale by people preaching abstinence, [/quote] The human sex drive can be overcome with simple will power. If the human sex drive was so strong nothing could be done, we would be the exact same as animals. We are different because people have will power. I will find you a scientific source if need be, but logic is my proof. Logic also says that the hook up culture cannot and will not survive. What does the term “culture of death” mean to you? Do people learn from history or do we repeat the exact same mistakes all over again? My family will learn from history. [quote]smh_23 wrote: especially when abstinence cannot be demonstrated to be an objectively desirable thing in the first place–with data from any time, and any place, and any people in the history of humanity. You ask if I think that the hook-up culture is going to be around much longer. [/quote]

I can look to history and find all sorts of examples. You show the college kids as proof of your stance. The funny part is that you are using the very culture that will drive itself into extinction. I knew plenty of girls who were very crazy sexually and would be the ones you describe about as they â??awkwardly shame-walking homeâ?? and I can tell you after a decade of life, I know many who are very unsatisfied with their lives.

The single event that changed them most was becoming pregnant. One girl I know was a six foot knockout and after she became pregnant, her world changed, obviously. The number of people and their behavior will never change Truth. [quote]smh_23 wrote: Yes, yes I do. Because it is simply a modern manifestation of an inexorable and timeless human truth, a human truth that you’ll see exactly everywhere you look. To take one of literally billions of examples, the same thing that drives college kids into awkwardly waking up next to strangers and then awkwardly shame-walking home was driving am not surprised in the least.[/quote] Does it surprise you to know people have a hard time killing other people because logic shows the opposite. [quote]smh_23 wrote: Union soldiers to go out a’lookin’ for some strange centuries ago. [/quote]

Your point is still illogical. If you take any group of people and stress them, you can never use them as an excuse to prove something irrelevant. [quote]smh_23 wrote: How do I know this? Because the Union army recorded more than 100,000 cases of gonorrhea in just a two-year period during the Civil War. The human tendency to promiscuity hasn’t changed since then, and it isn’t changing in the future, especially now that protective contraceptives, if used properly, have greatly reduced[/quote]If the diseases were eliminated we would NOT need protection. quote]smh_23 wrote:–in fact essentially eliminated–the risks and costs associated with the modern sex life.[/quote]

You agree with me, yet having sex with any girl you know is safe. Is this because people are honest about their past and they would never lie about having a sexually transmitted disease? I sure would not take everyone at their word because I know human nature. [quote]smh_23 wrote: Regarding “those type of diseases come from people who lack the self control to be mature.” Well, I agree, in a way. Unprotected sex with people whom you’re not familiar with is a pretty dumb thing to do in this world. But I suspect that you mean something more–something along the lines of, “people who abstain are mature and people who don’t are not.” [/quote]

Good to know that you watch movies for your moral views. [quote]smh_23 wrote: Well, to quote the Dude: That’s like, your opinion man. Your religion wants you to wait until marriage, mine doesn’t. my worldview, in fact, considers consensual sex to be among the healthiest and most important aspects of life as an adult human, right up there with exercise, reading, and watching football. [And nothing makes a responsible man mature like learning his way around a woman’s body, whether he’s married or not.][/quote]

You are thinking I will save the world? Nope. I will save one baby at a time though. [quote]smh_23 wrote: Take that little conundrum, take the fact that the set of moral axioms by which you live your life mean exactly nothing to me and to the billions of other people who live their lives by a completely different set of moral axioms, multiply it by 7 billion and you’ve got a problem that you’re not, and I mean not ever, going to solve.[/quote]

You just need to know that abortion kills a child, every single time. [quote]smh_23 wrote: You will never, in other words, convince me and/or people like me that abstinence is a good thing.[/quote]

Sex does NOT lead to pregnancy? Please learn the science of life before you make wrong statements like this. Every person in the world was created through sex. [quote]smh_23 wrote: But, luckily for all of us, abortion isn’t about sex, it’s about pregnancy. And sex doesn’t need to lead to pregnancy. Because you know what you can do? You can win on abortion where you failed on abstinence.[/quote] You are ok with killing children? I hope you are just angry. [quote]smh_23 wrote: You can, in the context of abortion, appeal to certain moral axioms that are, unlike the “wait 'till marriage” ones, universal or very nearly universal. You can make inroads with the Christian, the Jew, the agnostic, and even the atheist–inroads that cannot be made vis-a-vis abstinence.[/quote]

I have never said anything you claim in the last few paragraphs. With two children at home, I have things to do. [quote]smh_23 wrote: Convince Christians not to wear condoms, that’s fine as long as they aren’t going to get abortions. But when it’s non-Christians you’re talking about, who gives a damn if they wear them? Whereas when a non-Christian gets an abortion, we all give a damn. People who wear condoms don’t generally get abortions. And shouldn’t the enemy of your enemy be your friend?[/quote]

[pat]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have a question for the great scientific mind on this board . Honestly I do not know the answer Does a seed has all the genetical material that a plants has ? And if so why do we call it a seed ?[/quote]

A seed is the embryo of a plant. It has all of the genetic material required to make a plant, but it first needs to be implanted into the uterine lining of Mother Earth, which is the dirt. After which it will germinate and become a seedling, which would be the equivalent of a fetus.

Sperm are not seeds, even though we euphemistically refer to them as such (“semen” actually being the Latin word for “seed”). If it is analogous to anything in the vegetable kingdom, it would be pollen.

We create actual human “seeds” all the time, through in vitro fertilization. We can store these “baby seeds” in cryogenic stasis, for years, then plant the seeds in a healthy uterus when the time is right.

This raises an obvious ethical question. Standard procedure is to create more than one embryo, to give the prospective mother better odds of having a successful pregnancy.

So what happens to the unused embryos? Unless one wants to be Octomom and carry eight fetuses to term, one would select the healthiest implanted embryo and “thin out the seedlings” so to speak: discard the others.

One could elect to keep the other seeds on ice, paying typically 40 dollars a month for cryo fees. Conceivably (yuk yuk) one could donate the excess embryos to infertile women…or sell them, I suppose.

You see why this is a sticky ethical issue. Depending on how you look at it, one’s options for in vitro fertilization include mass murder and human trafficking.

Of course, for most people, the disposal of unused embryos poses an ethical problem no more daunting than would a late menstrual period, which very likely was an unimplanted embryo getting flushed naturally out of the body.
[/quote]

that is more or less what my point is , I think In no other aspect is a Undeveloped resource considered to be farther developed than common sense tell us it is .

This is the slippery slope of Catholicism .
[/quote]

You are sounding desperate now. Nobody has brought religion into it. Nobody has to, the issue is fundamental on it’s own. And the only person on a slippery slope is you.

‘The whole nature kills, so why can’t I’ analogy is a non-starter. Nature kills in many different ways every day. It does not give one the right to kill, because nature does it too.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Interesting. I would like you to expand on this. Preferably after having read my arguments on this thread: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/killing_babies_no_different_from_abortion_experts_say

Still reading, but if i understood you correctly, our positions are pretty close, while not identical.

You think we should use a “wider net”, and apply the concept of personhood to some non-human beings.
Something like a non-anthropocentric humanism.

I agree we should use a “wider net”, but i think we shouldn’t use the concept of personhood to make this net.
We should use the concept of “living being” instead. Which means that we should not only respect the “highest” forms of life, but each and every form of life.
Something like a “biocentric” foundation of morality.

In my eyes, morality need two things :

1. the widest possible spectrum
2. the highest possible standards

Life is the “widest” thing one can meaningfully respect (because you simply can’t “respect” a non-living thing)
So Life should be the basis of our widest possible spectrum. Not "humanity or “personhood”.
Those two concepts should be used to define the “standards” of morality instead.
True humanity, and true personhood are not what we are.
It’s something we sometimes (and quite rarely) achieve, and it’s something we should strive for.

In other words : if morality was a pyramid, life would be its ground-level foundations and humanity its hardly reached capstone.

[/quote]

I would use the term ‘human living being’. Particularly Pittbull is looking to exploit the definition of ‘living being’ to mean lots of things that are not human.

I would agree Personhood is not necessary to be part of the discussion since it is such an arbitrary definition. Further it’s a part of a human living being, not the living being in itself.

[pat]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

No. If you contend that the child in utero, is not a human being, you are defying science. That’s a matter of scientific fact. Don’t take my word for it, go look up the work of embryology. Find me one credible unbiased source that claims different.[/quote]

To be fair, you’re asking him to do something impossible.
But it’s not impossible de facto. It’s impossible de jure.

Science can prove that a fetus is a specimen of the homo sapiens specie, according to its models.
And it can prove that it is a “human organism”.

But proving it’s a human being is a philosophical and ethical problem.

One could argue that “humanity” (and its intrinsical ethical value) has nothing to do with biological taxonomies.
Such a position would not be “wrong”, per se, but it would definetely be evil.

Why ?
Because it purposefully restricts the “field of application” of morality.
And this kind of “amoralization”, so to speak, is always the first cobblestone on the famous “road paved with good intentions”.

Interesting. I would like you to expand on this. Preferably after having read my arguments on this thread: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/killing_babies_no_different_from_abortion_experts_say

[/quote]

I got a better idea… Why don’t you post your points from other said thread and that way it will be a lot less work for everybody who wants to follow along or participate.

It’s a little difficult to expect people to peruse entire threads. Lord knows I could just point to other threads where I made good points, but it’s murder for the reader to do that. It’s just not a reasonable expectation.[/quote]

I made a LOT of points on that thread, and went off on a lot of tangents, mostly in response to other people’s comments. I didn’t want to clutter up kneedragger’s thread by copy-pasting from another thread.

And besides: kamui is a European. I assumed, quite reasonably, that he would not find clicking on a link and perusing the content as murderously onerous as an American might. [/quote]

That’s just racist

I would like to see your points, but I am not going to fish through the thread to find them. Kam is more patient than I.

[pat]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Don’t think the fact that you have dodged several hard questions from people that we’ve forgotten we’ve asked them.[/quote]

Ask a simple question not hidden in a tirade of dribble , I will do my best to answer [/quote]

Sorry, those were direct questions. [/quote]

please repeat those diect questions
[/quote]

No. Find them and answer them, it’s not incumbent on me to, make you answer these hard questions. You certainly can avoid them, but it further makes your counter claims hollow if you are unable.