Vatican Funds Stem Cell Research

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Just because the argument makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it a non-sequitur or fallacious.
[/quote]

No, but it being a non sequitur and fallacious makes it so.

I think abortion is bad for the following reasons:

  1. It is unnecessary surgery. There reasons for this being bad should be fairly obvious.

  2. It fosters the mindset that human life is a commodity when allowed for reasons other than medical intervention. Contraception does not do this, before it is suggested. Contraception, in normal people, fosters bonding via sexual contact while allowing people to delay pregnancy until they are capable of raising a child (the common factors are finance and housing).

  3. It diminishes personal responsibility. If you are stupid enough to engage in sex without the pill or a condom etc. then you don’t get a “get out of jail free card”. Diminishing personal responsibility is one of the first steps to societal decay.

Now IVF doesn’t fall into this, because despite embryos being destroyed, the primary purpose of IVF is to CREATE life, not dispose of it. By doing what you seems to be doing and equating IVF with abortion, you imply that the couples who turn to IVF are viewing their children as commodities. Go up to a couple who has used IVF, tell them that, and get back to me how they respond.

It also does not remove responsibility, the couple are investing a lot into just making a child. It stands to reason that it is very likely they will be responsible for their child.[/quote]

If a certain percent of the embryo’s being harvested must necessarily be destroyed in the process, what does it matter what the couple feels about the outcome one way or the other. I’m absolutely positive that people who engage in the act of abortion come up with all sorts of reasons and justifications for why it is okay, too. That doesn’t make it so, nor do any of their redefinitions and warm fuzzies eventually bring any comfort to the one human it really matters to, the one that will be either torn limb from limb, incinerated or rejected by its host mother’s body.

And all the while, there are plenty, more than enough babies out there that NEED to be adopted.

And on top of all of this not a single poster here has addressed the extremely weird fact that the stems cells referred to in the OP that brought this discussion about in the first place have yet to bring about ONE SINGLE CURE for ANYTHING EVER.

That sounds like some pretty high stakes odds to be playing with human lives to me.

62

[quote]Makavali wrote:
… if I hinder research into the historical accuracy of the Bible by cutting your funding and feigning moral outrage at every turn, make congress pass laws to stifle said research, putting off researchers and threatening them with violence and then turn around and claim that your research is for naught and your researchers have had plenty of time and money to verify the Bible, I’m pretty sure you’d have a lot to say there.[/quote]

63

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If a certain percent of the embryo’s being harvested must necessarily be destroyed in the process, what does it matter what the couple feels about the outcome one way or the other. I’m absolutely positive that people who engage in the act of abortion come up with all sorts of reasons and justifications for why it is okay, too. That doesn’t make it so, nor do any of their redefinitions and warm fuzzies eventually bring any comfort to the one human it really matters to, the one that will be either torn limb from limb, incinerated or rejected by its host mother’s body.[/quote]

If a terrorist blows up a building, he seeks to kill as many people as possible. Civilians will most likely die in the process.

If the US military blows up a suspected weapons factory, they seek to kill terrorists. Due to the nature of warfare, civilians will most likely get caught up in it and die in the process.

The purpose for both these acts are vastly different, yet people die in both scenarios. Human life is lost. If I am yo use your reasoning, both are equivalent.

You would make the likes of Noam Chomsky proud.

So? Adopt them yourself. Find other people who are willing to adopt them. It is not a crime to want to raise your own genetic material to adulthood, it’s why we have half the urges we do.

See quoted passage above.

64

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
claims of the Catholic Church ‘hating’ science.[/quote]

They hate science that doesn’t fit with their predetermined rules about the universe.[/quote]

By predetermined rules you mean morals?

Life starts at conception is evident because of the characteristics of the baby starting at conception (this is compared to dead things):

  1. Reacts to stimuli. Dead things don’t react to stimuli and since the baby is growing it is reacting to some kind of stimuli.

  2. Metabolism. Dead things don’t metabolism energy, and the baby does metabolize nutrients.

  3. Unique DNA genome. This is contrast to a finger nail or a tumor, which would have the same DNA as the ‘host.’ A baby doesn’t have a matching DNA with its mother, but a unique DNA of its own.
    [/quote]

Stones react to stimuli, if I push them they roll.

[/quote]

That is not reacting, that is you moving it.

65

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
By predetermined rules you mean morals?[/quote]

No, I mean the nonsense they spout and label as morals.[/quote]

That’s called Natural Law, not nonsense.

66

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If a certain percent of the embryo’s being harvested must necessarily be destroyed in the process, what does it matter what the couple feels about the outcome one way or the other. I’m absolutely positive that people who engage in the act of abortion come up with all sorts of reasons and justifications for why it is okay, too. That doesn’t make it so, nor do any of their redefinitions and warm fuzzies eventually bring any comfort to the one human it really matters to, the one that will be either torn limb from limb, incinerated or rejected by its host mother’s body.[/quote]

If a terrorist blows up a building, he seeks to kill as many people as possible. Civilians will most likely die in the process.

If the US military blows up a suspected weapons factory, they seek to kill terrorists. Due to the nature of warfare, civilians will most likely get caught up in it and die in the process.

The purpose for both these acts are vastly different, yet people die in both scenarios. Human life is lost. If I am yo use your reasoning, both are equivalent.

You would make the likes of Noam Chomsky proud.

So? Adopt them yourself. Find other people who are willing to adopt them. It is not a crime to want to raise your own genetic material to adulthood, it’s why we have half the urges we do.

See quoted passage above.[/quote]

Red herrings aside, what, then, is your point?

67

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If a certain percent of the embryo’s being harvested must necessarily be destroyed in the process, what does it matter what the couple feels about the outcome one way or the other. I’m absolutely positive that people who engage in the act of abortion come up with all sorts of reasons and justifications for why it is okay, too. That doesn’t make it so, nor do any of their redefinitions and warm fuzzies eventually bring any comfort to the one human it really matters to, the one that will be either torn limb from limb, incinerated or rejected by its host mother’s body.[/quote]

If a terrorist blows up a building, he seeks to kill as many people as possible. Civilians will most likely die in the process.

If the US military blows up a suspected weapons factory, they seek to kill terrorists. Due to the nature of warfare, civilians will most likely get caught up in it and die in the process.

The purpose for both these acts are vastly different, yet people die in both scenarios. Human life is lost. If I am yo use your reasoning, both are equivalent.

You would make the likes of Noam Chomsky proud.

So? Adopt them yourself. Find other people who are willing to adopt them. It is not a crime to want to raise your own genetic material to adulthood, it’s why we have half the urges we do.

See quoted passage above.[/quote]

Red herrings aside, what, then, is your point?
[/quote]

If you’d care to glance back at the first page, you’d see that my point is that there is a viable source of embryonic stem cells to create renewable lines for use in medical fields, which may or may not provide breakthroughs (but will definitely not when it is stonewalled as it is now).

68

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
If a certain percent of the embryo’s being harvested must necessarily be destroyed in the process, what does it matter what the couple feels about the outcome one way or the other. I’m absolutely positive that people who engage in the act of abortion come up with all sorts of reasons and justifications for why it is okay, too. That doesn’t make it so, nor do any of their redefinitions and warm fuzzies eventually bring any comfort to the one human it really matters to, the one that will be either torn limb from limb, incinerated or rejected by its host mother’s body.[/quote]

If a terrorist blows up a building, he seeks to kill as many people as possible. Civilians will most likely die in the process.

If the US military blows up a suspected weapons factory, they seek to kill terrorists. Due to the nature of warfare, civilians will most likely get caught up in it and die in the process.

The purpose for both these acts are vastly different, yet people die in both scenarios. Human life is lost. If I am yo use your reasoning, both are equivalent.

You would make the likes of Noam Chomsky proud.

So? Adopt them yourself. Find other people who are willing to adopt them. It is not a crime to want to raise your own genetic material to adulthood, it’s why we have half the urges we do.

See quoted passage above.[/quote]

Red herrings aside, what, then, is your point?
[/quote]

If you’d care to glance back at the first page, you’d see that my point is that there is a viable source of embryonic stem cells to create renewable lines for use in medical fields, which may or may not provide breakthroughs (but will definitely not when it is stonewalled as it is now).[/quote]

Do you think it would be okay if we got the stem cells from abortion clinics’ medical waste?

69

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Do you think it would be okay if we got the stem cells from abortion clinics’ medical waste?
[/quote]

Medical waste? Interesting choice of words there.

70

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Do you think it would be okay if we got the stem cells from abortion clinics’ medical waste?
[/quote]

Medical waste? Interesting choice of words there.[/quote]

Aborted fetuses?

Dead babies?

Terminated coital by-product?

What it “is” speaks to my point, as you appear to understand, and it applies just as much in this situation as it does in the case of embryonic stem cell harvesting.

71

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Do you think it would be okay if we got the stem cells from abortion clinics’ medical waste?
[/quote]

Medical waste? Interesting choice of words there.[/quote]

Aborted fetuses?

Dead babies?

Terminated coital by-product?

What it “is” speaks to my point, as you appear to understand, and it applies just as much in this situation as it does in the case of embryonic stem cell harvesting. [/quote]

No, it told me that you were trying to be inflammatory.

72

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Do you think it would be okay if we got the stem cells from abortion clinics’ medical waste?
[/quote]

Medical waste? Interesting choice of words there.[/quote]

Aborted fetuses?

Dead babies?

Terminated coital by-product?

What it “is” speaks to my point, as you appear to understand, and it applies just as much in this situation as it does in the case of embryonic stem cell harvesting. [/quote]

No, it told me that you were trying to be inflammatory.[/quote]

Do you want to engage in debate and answer my question, Mak, or not?

73

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Do you think it would be okay if we got the stem cells from abortion clinics’ medical waste?
[/quote]

Medical waste? Interesting choice of words there.[/quote]

Aborted fetuses?

Dead babies?

Terminated coital by-product?

What it “is” speaks to my point, as you appear to understand, and it applies just as much in this situation as it does in the case of embryonic stem cell harvesting. [/quote]

No, it told me that you were trying to be inflammatory.[/quote]

Do you want to engage in debate and answer my question, Mak, or not?
[/quote]

When you have to debate to prove something is human life or not neither side is right. Therefore you do it if it beneficial to society. You throw away the moral standings, the so called “ethics” and you get the job done. You’re willing to oppose the potential benefits of this kind of research based on something that may or may not be true? That’s kind of arrogant and a model that stands against societal progression.

Plus even if an embryo is “life” and belongs to an animal then you might as well go on a crusade to protect all animal life. If you’re trying to protect the beginning of life shouldn’t life be sacred for all creatures and beings?

Some people are willing to go into such passion arguing issues like these that are “morally wrong” yet they fail to take notice for a moment the backdrop of death and pain they live in. World be fucked up, fo’ real.

74

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Do you think it would be okay if we got the stem cells from abortion clinics’ medical waste?
[/quote]

Medical waste? Interesting choice of words there.[/quote]

Aborted fetuses?

Dead babies?

Terminated coital by-product?

What it “is” speaks to my point, as you appear to understand, and it applies just as much in this situation as it does in the case of embryonic stem cell harvesting. [/quote]

No, it told me that you were trying to be inflammatory.[/quote]

Do you want to engage in debate and answer my question, Mak, or not?
[/quote]

When you have to debate to prove something is human life or not neither side is right.
Therefore you do it if it beneficial to society. You throw away the moral standings, the so called “ethics” and you get the job done. You’re willing to oppose the potential benefits of this kind of research based on something that may or may not be true? That’s kind of arrogant and a model that stands against societal progression.

Plus even if an embryo is “life” and belongs to an animal then you might as well go on a crusade to protect all animal life. If you’re trying to protect the beginning of life shouldn’t life be sacred for all creatures and beings?

Some people are willing to go into such passion arguing issues like these that are “morally wrong” yet they fail to take notice for a moment the backdrop of death and pain they live in. World be fucked up, fo’ real.

[/quote]

So is anybody going to answer my question?

75

Just for fun:

No, the purpose of that debate is to determine which side is right. And the answer is extremely important.

This is not your original idea and I’ll bet you didn’t know that I know who you took it from. Actually, I’ll be you don’t know who you took it from, else you might not be so quick to espouse it in public. Are you also fond of schnitzel and look great in a brown uniform?

Uh, what?

Actually, the death and pain was exactly what spurred me to take up this debate in the first place. But you’ve already placed all your morals aside in the service of “societal progression,” what do you care of the death and pain society may have to endure to assure that result?

76

[quote]Cortes wrote:
So is anybody going to answer my question?[/quote]

I no longer believe it was asked in good faith. But, of course, just for fun:

Assuming you mean terminated pregnancies, then yes, it is. I don’t have to support abortion to see an opportunity to create a renewable source of potential cures for diseases. Were the ideas about contraception listened to, and abortion stopped as a result, no loss, IVF is still there.

So in a long winded way, yes, it is okay.

77

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Just for fun:

No, the purpose of that debate is to determine which side is right. And the answer is extremely important.

This is not your original idea and I’ll bet you didn’t know that I know who you took it from. Actually, I’ll be you don’t know who you took it from, else you might not be so quick to espouse it in public. Are you also fond of schnitzel and look great in a brown uniform?

Uh, what?

Actually, the death and pain was exactly what spurred me to take up this debate in the first place. But you’ve already placed all your morals aside in the service of “societal progression,” what do you care of the death and pain society may have to endure to assure that result? [/quote]

No actually debate is a futile exercise to determine which side is right in your own mind. Science will answer the question or it will remain open ended forever.

The problem is you’re looking at the issue from a purely idealogical stand point based on some superior moral standing you think you have. Now maybe you’re right that I exaggerated that phrase about putting all ethics aside for progression, I wouldn’t, but in the case of ESC research I would. The point is ESC is nothing within the greater environment we live in. Are you against suffering and against death? I assume so, so why would you try and halt something that can help. Especially when ESC is nothing compared to the other fucked up shit that goes on around the Church.

ESC research isn’t some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.

78

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
ESC research isn’t some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.[/quote]

I am sure the German scientist said the same thing with their experiments. No, freezing humans to test pain tolerance is not some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.

At least their research has provided fruit. ESC has proved zero cures, compared to ASC which has produced 73 cures. Even if it did provide one cure, killing even one baby is not justified to do so. Sorry. The ends don’t justify the means.

79

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
ESC research isn’t some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.[/quote]

I am sure the German scientist said the same thing with their experiments. No, freezing humans to test pain tolerance is not some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.

At least their research has provided fruit. ESC has proved zero cures, compared to ASC which has produced 73 cures. Even if it did provide one cure, killing even one baby is not justified to do so. Sorry. The ends don’t justify the means.[/quote]

An embryo and a child/man/woman/whatever are not the same. Despite your girlish screams and protests that they are, it is still in doubt.

And stop harping on about “no cures”. Like I have already said who know how many fucking times, stifling research and then claiming it is fruitless is beyond idiotic. Your stupidity is the exact same stupidity that held mankind back during the Dark Ages.

80

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
ESC research isn’t some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.[/quote]

I am sure the German scientist said the same thing with their experiments. No, freezing humans to test pain tolerance is not some wicked, malicious shit done with any cruel intent. It’s simply a means to an end to try and help REAL people you come in contact with on an everyday basis.

At least their research has provided fruit. ESC has proved zero cures, compared to ASC which has produced 73 cures. Even if it did provide one cure, killing even one baby is not justified to do so. Sorry. The ends don’t justify the means.[/quote]

That’s what that Cortes guy was trying to tell me but it’s all idealogical BS. How come I care if you freeze a human but don’t give a shit what happens to an ESC. Does that make me psychotic or evil?

Nah.