When Does Life Begin?

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
I want answers from RL and Baddog1. Why is this so hard for you to answer?

Diest TKO wrote:
This will go on every page until answered.

Diest TKO wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
...Still no responce from the Pro-life crowd about cryostasis for embryos? How many times must I post a question...

BUMP

I'm not letting this one go.

T
K
O

Not speaking for RL - however here is my answer as to cryostasis for any life form:

EXPERIMENTAL!

For one who puts so much emphasis on the need for tangible proof - why would you obsess over an experimental procedure?

So your answer is that you would not support the alternative to the destruction of the embryo. That's hypocritical.

T
K
O

Huh?

How in the world did you assume that answer?

0 Replies

Your answer was flighty and ambiguous. It's no fault of mine if you weren't clear in your non-answer.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Your answer was flighty and ambiguous. It's no fault of mine if you weren't clear in your non-answer.

T
K
O

I'm confused - was it an answer or a non-answer?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So you want to enforce 'rules' on who can and cannot have an elective abortion?

How is that different from making it illegal?

How is enforcing rules on who can and cannot drink different from outlawing alcohol consumption?

Don't be completely daft, RL. The difference is very clear.

Quote:

And if you are NOT for making it illegal, then you are (despite your earlier denial) arguing for legal elective abortions.

No. Being for something is not the same as arguing for something. I never argued for legal elective abortions since I rejoined the forums. (Can't remember if I did before; after all, this thread is really old). You're being dishonest in this, RL.

Let's say, I asked you whether you supported outlawing euthanasia, and you said yes. I then stated you are arguing for illegal euthanasia, despite the fact that you've made no arguments for it in this entire thread. Is that not dishonest? That is the same thing as you are doing now. Deny it all you want, but you cannot escape the dishonesty of what you've just done.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Your answer was flighty and ambiguous. It's no fault of mine if you weren't clear in your non-answer.

T
K
O

I'm confused - was it an answer or a non-answer?

Flight.

I'd like an actual answer. "EXPERIMENTAL" does not satisfy the criterion for a question that requires a "for" or "against" answer.

Yuo certainly replied, but you didn't answer.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Your answer was flighty and ambiguous. It's no fault of mine if you weren't clear in your non-answer.

T
K
O

I'm confused - was it an answer or a non-answer?

Flight.

I'd like an actual answer. "EXPERIMENTAL" does not satisfy the criterion for a question that requires a "for" or "against" answer.

Yuo certainly replied, but you didn't answer.

T
K
O

You're asking for a definitive answer to an unfinished proposition. As you well know - anything that is in the experimental phase undergoes several changes & compromises until/unless it is deemed completed. There is not yet enough information available for me to make an informed decision on this matter.

Once the experimentation is concluded and the final product has been established - I will gladly provide my answer.

0 Replies

Assume the experiment is completed. What's your answer?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Assume the experiment is completed. What's your answer?

As I explained ci - it is foolish for me to try and accurately make an assumption such as this. By historical knowledge - the project will undergo many changes and compromises until it is completed which will most likely have an effect on the final outcome. You're asking me to predict the future as it relates to an unprecedented experiment and I am incapable of doing this.

0 Replies

Seriously, assume that with a 99.9% success rate embryos can be safely transplanted into cryostasis. Once in cryostasis, the methods used prove 99.9% safe for cells (no cellular damage).

Under these exact conditions, be it today or a 100years from now, what is your thoughts on live embryo extraction and storage.

Direct question, direct answer.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Seriously, assume that with a 99.9% success rate embryos can be safely transplanted into cryostasis. Once in cryostasis, the methods used prove 99.9% safe for cells (no cellular damage).

Under these exact conditions, be it today or a 100years from now, what is your thoughts on live embryo extraction and storage.

Direct question, direct answer.

T
K
O

It could be hard to explain your reasoning to God.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Seriously, assume that with a 99.9% success rate embryos can be safely transplanted into cryostasis. Once in cryostasis, the methods used prove 99.9% safe for cells (no cellular damage).

Under these exact conditions, be it today or a 100years from now, what is your thoughts on live embryo extraction and storage.

Direct question, direct answer.

T
K
O
It could be hard to explain your reasoning to God.

That's and indirect non-answer.
K
O

Post Script - Why do you think it would be hard to explain?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

neologist wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Seriously, assume that with a 99.9% success rate embryos can be safely transplanted into cryostasis. Once in cryostasis, the methods used prove 99.9% safe for cells (no cellular damage).

Under these exact conditions, be it today or a 100years from now, what is your thoughts on live embryo extraction and storage.

Direct question, direct answer.

T
K
O
It could be hard to explain your reasoning to God.

That's and indirect non-answer.
K
O

Post Script - Why do you think it would be hard to explain?

Are you so sure of your conclusions that you could explain yourself to God?

If so, I retract my statement with sympathy.

0 Replies

The way I see it, if there is a god, it would be god who needs to do some explaining.

I'd rather you spend less time retracting the statement and simply give me an answer rather than your sympathy.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Deist, I find it quite amusing that those people who claim to be prolifers are able to project their assumptions all over creation, but when they are challenged with a "what if," they become mute.

0 Replies

Mildly amusing, but mostly frustrating. I'm trying to find a comprimise here, and I'm being met with opposition.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Seriously, assume that with a 99.9% success rate embryos can be safely transplanted into cryostasis. Once in cryostasis, the methods used prove 99.9% safe for cells (no cellular damage).

Under these exact conditions, be it today or a 100years from now, what is your thoughts on live embryo extraction and storage.

Direct question, direct answer.

T
K
O

It is not a direct question - it is a highly conditional question, therefore it will receive a conditional answer.

IF God chose to provide this experiment with the where-with-all to complete it - I would be all for it. If not - I would not.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

The way I see it, if there is a god, it would be god who needs to do some explaining.

I'd rather you spend less time retracting the statement and simply give me an answer rather than your sympathy.

T
K
O

You have presumed to know all there is about the possible moral implications of preserving embryos. If you have made even the smallest oversight, would you be willing to defend the consequences? If so, you are either very intelligent or very naive.

0 Replies

So to be clear, because "where-with-all" is ambiguous.

Under the circumstances I posted.

You would support live embryo extraction?

Please reply with only a yes or no.

T
K
One word answer requested.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
The way I see it, if there is a god, it would be god who needs to do some explaining.

I'd rather you spend less time retracting the statement and simply give me an answer rather than your sympathy.

T
K
O
You have presumed to know all there is about the possible moral implications of preserving embryos. If you have made even the smallest oversight, would you be willing to defend the consequences? If so, you are either very intelligent or very naive.

I've made no such presumptions. However, I am curious as to what moral implications one could conjure in the name of chasing geese. In general your line of questioning if applied to the Pro-lifers for government control you'd find more presumption as to the moral implications. You find more willing to deny the consequences then to defend them.

Lastly, I'm very intellegent. Very Happy

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

So to be clear, because "where-with-all" is ambiguous.

Under the circumstances I posted.

You would support live embryo extraction?

Please reply with only a yes or no.

T
K
One word answer requested.

Nice spin-attempt. Your post in reference is equally ambiguous. My answer remains the same.

Deist: You are attempting to persuade me (and presumably others) to provide you with the answer(s) you want to hear, regardless of our position. It is unfair to continue tightening your criteria in hopes that we will provide your specific answer. Despite clear evidence - you maintain your emotion-based position. That's fine - but you cannot cry foul when we do the same.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know