Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Dodge the question again, real life?

I am indeed fond of this question because it proves the greater value of life one attaches to a five year old than one does to an embryo. In crude terms, the 5 year old is worth more. Far more.

You would save the 5-year-old, even if it meant the end of the foetuses. You know it.

My position is to save peoples lives at the expense of embryos. Your dualist 100% human being vs blob of tissue is ridiculous.

You presume that if I was in the building with the 50 embryos, that I would unplug the fridge for my own enjoyment. You KNOW that is not the case. It's a slur. It's OK. I can take it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
Which would you choose for yourself -- the damage the woman may or may not[/i] suffer during pregnancy; or the 100% certain damage, DEATH, that the unborn will ALWAYS suffer in a successful abortion?

I'll answer yours when you answer mine. 50 embryos or a child? (For therein lies the answer to your question.)

you'd be a fool to expect that RL will just simply answer your question. He'll attack your question before answering it.

Don't hold your breathe, this waltz is all too familiar.

Well, Diest if you look back a few days you'll see how we've discussed why the conjured up 'lifeboat scenarios' which have no real relationship to the actual circumstances of the abortion question, seem to be the only questions Eorl shows great interest in.

When asked when is one a living human being, the 'definition' he gives 'proves' that one must be able to build a fire, and produce literature and music before one qualifies.

As I mentioned, I could've taken the easy way out and mentioned that the freezer will likely protect the embryos from the fire. So if you're gonna try your hand at you seem to think is a 'paradox' , you might as least try one with some actual difficulty.

I haven't heard much from you since I blew apart your argument regarding Missouri's Amendment 2. How have you been?

Is your local university going to cash in on A2 and get in on the millions now available in Missouri's cloning biz?

Don't even bring up A2. I believe you turned tail and ran away after being presented with a mere fraction of the facts ans support. If you want to go there again, we can, but it didn't help you any.

don't build you house in the sand, again.

As for not hearing from me, I'm proud to report an excellent thanksgiving holiday break full of turkey and relaxation. I'll even throw in a plug for "Stranger than Fiction," as it far surpassed my expectations, and was thoroghly enjoyable. RL, I hardly checked my email over break; A2K posts were pretty low on the totem, dig.

Oh BTW, the only people exploiting the A2 bill are evangelists.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:
real life wrote:
The unborn has a body of his/her own.

From day 1, the unborn's DNA is distinct from the mother's.

Biologically , it cannot be accurately said that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body'.

So, a fetus, until able to live without the mother is in fact, a parasite.

In fact, it's not. It doesn't fit the definition of such. You are simply repeating political slogans, not giving accurate medical information.

from http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=parasitism&action=Search

Quote:
parasitism

<biology> A type of symbiosis where two (or more) organisms from different species [/u][/i]live in close proximity to one another, in which one member depends on another for its nutrients, protection, and/or other life functions.
emphasis mine

from http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/parasitism

Quote:

parasitism
One entry found for parasitism.
Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: 'per-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-, "pa-r&-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; [/u][/i]especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

emphasis mine

Ok genius, I don't actually believe that a baby is a parasite but it's as riduculous a stament as any you make. I was trying to make a point. I don't think anyone here really believes a fetus is a parasite.

But thanks for the lesson. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

real life,
You keep referring to the question about the 5 year old and the 50 embryos as a paradox. The question isn't a paradox. The only paradox is if you believe embryos are equal to a child and yet you would save the 5 year old over the 50 embryos.

0 Replies

Stray Cat wrote:

I was referring to the use of the word, "parasite," as a biological or medical term. In those situations, a parasite would commonly be an organism of one species, living on or within an organism of another species -- which could potentially cause damage to the "host" by draining it of nourishment.

While parasites are usually of another species, they don't have to be. The fetus is a parasite since it sucks up nutrients and can damage and/or kill the woman involuntarily hosting it without conferring any benefit to her. Half a million women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, and millions more suffer from the complications Eorl listed.

Quote:

There is just as good a chance that she would see her own face every time she looked at it. Should the child be punished for the father's sins?

Baddog1 said that it is OK to abort fetuses resulting from rape but not for other reasons. He is the one who seems to think that the potential child may be "punished" for its father's sins. I do not think any ethical distinction can be made (I agree that a woman must never be forced to carry the child of her rapist, neither should she be obligated to carry any child regardless of who fathered it) but think the child should be watched for signs that it inherited anti-social tendencies from him so that it can be given help if needed.

My point was that we cannot make an ethical distinction between fetuses resulting from rape and those resulting from birth control failure, drug use, or hormones running amok. IMO, early abortion should be available to every woman for whatever reasons she thinks are justified. Women do not abort babies on a whim. No one else knows her personal situation, and no one else has the right to tell her what decision she should make.

Quote:

So the "right" of adults to enjoy sex trumps everything else? Including the life of the child they created (whether intentionally or unintentionally)?

They are not terminating the life of a child, they are stopping the development of one BEFORE it becomes a child. The end result is exactly the same whether the process is terminated before conception, after conception, or any time up to the point that the embryo/fetus reaches sentience.

And yes, according to the Declaration of Independence, we have a right to pursue happiness. Nowhere does it say we have an obligation to become parents as a result.

Quote:

The mother would only have to "obligated" for nine months, after which time she could put the child up for adoption. There are scores of people out there who would love to adopt a child. Many are on waiting lists.

This is the worst argument I have ever heard for compulsory childbearing for women who accidentally become pregnant. Only a 9-month obligation, as if the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy were nothing! Go donate a kidney, if you want to risk your life and health for a stranger's convenience.

If society would allow women to be professional childbearers/surrogate mothers (instead of involuntary brood mares who are only paid if they keep the child and raise it themselves) and adequately compensated them for their time and the pain and suffering of pregnancy and childbirth, there would be plenty of babies available for those unwilling or unable to bear their own. Women who intentionally conceived using high-quality sperm, took care of themselves, avoided dangerous drugs and got good health care for the duration of the pregnancy would bear healthier babies, and society would be better off than having irresponsible women raising unwanted children in poverty.

Quote:

Smokers are not terminating the life of another -- just possibly their own.

Smokers kill others with second-hand smoke and the fires they cause. But the real question here was whether society should deny medical treatment to those whose behavior contributed to their condition. Care to answer that one?

Quote:

I don't know that it's "despite their wishes." There are living wills in which they can specify whether or not they want life support if such a situation should ever occur.

Many people do not have living wills, and they are not always honored by medical personnel or families, even if they know about them. The real question here was whether we have a right to interfere with the fate of others for our own benefit. What do you think?

Quote:

Who do you think should decide? Do you think this is a question that shoud be left up to the individual, and everyone else should just mind their own business? Should the unborn child not have anyone to present its case?

The woman should decide in first and second trimester abortions, because there is no "unborn child" to have a case. There is a non-sentient embryo/fetus that is incapable of having any desires, opinions, or even any idea of its own existence because it does not have a mind. It cannot think or feel emotions. It has no legal standing because no person yet exists. Its body is alive, but uninhabited, and no murder is committed if it is killed.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You clearly overlooked the part of the definition that you don't want, in order to misuse the word.

You clearly overlooked the fact that you cannot decree which of the multiple definitions of a word a poster must use! If an object satisfies even one of the definitions, it may be legitimately called that. A carnivorous mammal does not have to be a malicious woman to be referred to as a cat.

Fetuses ARE parasites, according to definition 3#, and also #2 since the definition of parasitism includes "behavior of a parasite" without regard to species.

Quote:

Abortion is 100% fatal to the unborn, if you wanna talk about damage,

So is not being conceived at all. What is the moral difference between a life terminated before or after conception, if a mind that can know of its life has never existed in either case?

Quote:

Which would you choose for yourself -- the damage the woman may or may not suffer during pregnancy; or the 100% certain damage, DEATH, that the unborn will ALWAYS suffer in a successful abortion?

I guarantee you that 100% of women suffer some kind of damage during pregnancy, and half a million die from it each year. I already choose (twice) to accept the pain, suffering and permanent damage, but I would NEVER presume to make the choice for any other woman.

The brain takes at least 24 (probably 30) weeks of gestation to develop to the point awareness might be possible. Before a human being/person exists, there is nothing to be "damaged" by death except a mindless body. It is the property of the woman gestating it, and no one else has a right to decide whether she keeps or terminates it until it reaches sentience.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

I said that people change their mind about issues, and you asserted that I never would, no matter what, because I am psychologically incapable of accepting evidence that goes against my beliefs. Then you suggested that I must have an ulterior motive (pay-off) for posting here. I don't know why you refuse to admit that what you posted WAS an unfounded attack on my character, not an assessment based on my position.

I maintain that your "chosen" position will remain unaltered - by your own emotional reasoning. As to whether it was a personal attack - (or NOT) - is unimportant to this discussion.

Terry wrote:

Quote:

Facts are independently verifiable, such as the stages of fetal development. It is a FACT that fetuses CANNOT deliberately grasp a surgeon's finger but do have a grasping reflex that can be used to manipulate the emotions of the gullible. It is a fact that the fetus is alive (and I don't know of anyone who has disputed that), but it is an opinion that it is a human being/person or that it should have any rights before it is capable of conscious thought or action.

OK - fine. Therefore (in your opinion) is it a fact that the mother of the fetus in the photo has every right to kill it for whatever reason she chooses?

Terry wrote:

Quote:

I don't know why the rape should affect the child, if it is given up for adoption at birth. Certainly it would be affected if the mother kept it and saw the face of the rapist every time she looked at it. In any case, I don't see why it is OK to abort child resulting from rape but not one resulting from emotional manipulation.

Wow! That answer surprises me a bit.

Terry wrote:

Quote:

Choosing to abort a pregnancy that results from birth control failure IS taking responsibility. You may not agree with their choice, but they have the legal and, IMO, ethical right to exercise it. Not everyone can use the most effective methods of birth control, and some do not have the knowledge or self-discipline to use them effectively. People should have the right to enjoy sex (with consenting adults) without being obligated to become parents due to birth control failure, bad luck, or bad judgment.

Why use birth control at all then? Just abort if you become pregnant!

Terry wrote:

Quote:

Smokers know the risks but are treated for cancer even though their behavior caused it. People's lifestyles and choices put them at risk for a number of diseases and preventable accidents, but medical treatment is not withheld even when the victim's condition was the direct result of bad judgment. I don't see why accidental pregnancy should be any different.

Again - Wow!

Terry wrote:

Quote:

You said that "I feel it's her (and her husband's) responsibility to do all that is possible to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. If/when an "accident" happens - my own belief is that it was simply meant to be - if proper precautions were taken." I just wondered if "meant to be" in your belief system referred to Fate, dharma, or some omniscient deity's Plan. Should someone with a different belief system be accountable to the obligations of yours?

Yes. Nope.

Terry wrote:

Quote:

If altering the fate of another being for our own convenience is wrong, what about deaths that are "meant to be" but we use extreme measures to keep the person alive, despite their wishes and no matter how much they may be suffering, just because it makes US feel better?

Choice.

Terry wrote:

Quote:

The children that I never conceived were not hurt. The millions of spontaneously aborted eggs/embryos were not hurt. The embryos/fetuses that were deliberately aborted before they achieved sentience were not hurt. A life that never existed CANNOT be hurt. I only know of one person who had an abortion (the subject does not come up in general conversation, so there may be others) and she does not regret it and to my knowledge has not suffered from it.

OK.

You've definitely enlightened me to several issues. Thanks.

BD

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Quote:

Dodge the question again, real life?

Actually, Eorl, you seem to be the one who consistently dodges questions. You answer about one out of seven that are asked of you.

I also can't help noticing how Eorl's all nice as hell one minute, "Thanks Stray Cat!, just a couple of questions," - which is followed by a barrage of hostile, childishly posed, over-emotional questions, then ending with an apologetic, "I'm not in favour of abortion." Strange.

The questions sounded like something the average 20-21 year old would come up with. "What makes you think you have the right to decide?," when I never suggested I had some kind of "right" to decide anything for anyone - just expressing my opinion.

There's the hallmark of an immature debater - never mind if the other person actually said something - just put the words in their mouth.

Or how about his question concerning the fifty year old woman who might be having a child with downs syndrome? "Would you lock her in a room so she couldn't do anything?"

Yeah, Eorl. I'd lock her in a room so she couldn't do anything. I mean, come the hell on.how old are you, anyway?

And why is that the obvious answer of adoption never occurs to Eorl? Instead, he's determined to get the one - and only - answer that he wants to hear - "abortion." It's abortion or nothing -- it's just got to be!

Quote:

When you said no damage occurs to mother, I didn't have to look very far (my wife is 7 months with our second) to know how wrong you are.

Is that right? I don't think so, Eorl. I think you're full of it. No man with kids would've posted that absurd list of pregnancy symptoms that you did. The list that must've included every single symptom that any pregnant women in the history of pregnancy ever experienced. To read that list, you'd think every pregnant woman out there is lying in a bed of agony, being devoured by the "monstrous parasite" within them.

In fact, it seems as if you are disgusted by pregnancy, Eorl. And contemptuous of the fetus, judging by your passionate insistence that a fetus is a "parasite."

At any rate, I don't think you're a married guy, and I don't think you have kids. I think you're a kid sitting in a college dorm room posting this stuff.

Btw, everybody, I also found this post of Eorl's on another thread:

Quote:

You, the so-called christian, will happily murder a criminal....while I happily run around encouraging mothers to murder their children.

And yet on this thread, he posted:

Quote:

(As I like to point out, I'm not in favour of abortion (few people are)..... but I will fight tooth and nail to make it safe and available to all)

Interesting, isn't it? What's up with the schizophrenic posts, Eorl? And why would you be encouraging women to "murder their children?"

I think Eorl has proven something everyone here already knew, deep down. Yes, there are some religious extremists out there. There are also some real whack jobs on the other side of the fence too.

Oh, and good luck studying for your finals, Eorl.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

[...Baddog1 said that it is OK to abort fetuses resulting from rape but not for other reasons. He is the one who seems to think that the potential child may be "punished" for its father's sins. I do not think any ethical distinction can be made (I agree that a woman must never be forced to carry the child of her rapist, neither should she be obligated to carry any child regardless of who fathered it) but think the child should be watched for signs that it inherited anti-social tendencies from him so that it can be given help if needed.

Huh? Where did I say that it was "OK to abort fetuses resulting from rape but not for any other reasons"?

As to your thoughts on what I said about a potential child from rape - it is reasonable to conclude that a child may be "punished" (unjustly) by members of society. You added the "...father's sins..." portion!

To be clear once again: I feel that children born from rape will most likely be forced to deal with emotional issues that they would not have had to deal with if born from a "conventional" parental situation. There may also be physical/medical issues that these children might be forced to deal with as well.

0 Replies

Quote:

The end result is exactly the same whether the process is terminated before conception, after conception, or any time up to the point that the embryo/fetus reaches sentience.

And according to you, that would take at least 24, probably 30 weeks. So aborting a fetus up to the age of 7 months is perfectly alright? Holy sh!t!

Quote:

And yes, according to the Declaration of Independence, we have a right to pursue happiness. Nowhere does it say we have an obligation to become parents as a result.

Giving up a child for adoption wouldn't be "obligating you to become a parent."

As far as happiness is concerned, some of the deepest, longest lasting and most rewarding happiness that a human being can achieve in life is through living up to their obligations. It's often amazing how people can accept a challenge, even though it wasn't planned for or expected, and rise to the occasion. You give little credence to the resiliency of the human spirit.

Life -- and happiness -- isn't always about having a "good time" (and yes, that even includes sex).

Quote:

Only a 9-month obligation, as if the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy were nothing! Go donate a kidney, if you want to risk your life and health for a stranger's convenience

Never said it would be easy. But when there is another life involved, it's no longer all about you and the easiest, most convenient option for you.

Quote:

Smokers kill others with second-hand smoke and the fires they cause.

Non-smokers can get up and walk away from a smoker. What input does the unborn child have while you're making your decision. In addition, smoking has been banned from just about all public places, and the number of fires caused by smokers each year is probably minimal compared to the number of abortions that take place.

Quote:

But the real question here was whether society should deny medical treatment to those whose behavior contributed to their condition. Care to answer that one?

No one's denying medical treatment to pregnant women. Medical treatment doesn't automatically have to mean an abortion.

Quote:

Many people do not have living wills, and they are not always honored by medical personnel or families, even if they know about them.

This isn't a perfect world, and there is no one answer that is going to be the perfect solution in all situations. I grant you that without a living will, there is no way of knowing what the person's wishes were. But I still stand by my statement that a living will is a good idea for anyone who doesn't wish to be put on life support.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
Which would you choose for yourself -- the damage the woman may or may not[/i] suffer during pregnancy; or the 100% certain damage, DEATH, that the unborn will ALWAYS suffer in a successful abortion?

I'll answer yours when you answer mine. 50 embryos or a child? (For therein lies the answer to your question.)

you'd be a fool to expect that RL will just simply answer your question. He'll attack your question before answering it.

Don't hold your breathe, this waltz is all too familiar.

Well, Diest if you look back a few days you'll see how we've discussed why the conjured up 'lifeboat scenarios' which have no real relationship to the actual circumstances of the abortion question, seem to be the only questions Eorl shows great interest in.

When asked when is one a living human being, the 'definition' he gives 'proves' that one must be able to build a fire, and produce literature and music before one qualifies.

As I mentioned, I could've taken the easy way out and mentioned that the freezer will likely protect the embryos from the fire. So if you're gonna try your hand at you seem to think is a 'paradox' , you might as least try one with some actual difficulty.

I haven't heard much from you since I blew apart your argument regarding Missouri's Amendment 2. How have you been?

Is your local university going to cash in on A2 and get in on the millions now available in Missouri's cloning biz?

Don't even bring up A2. I believe you turned tail and ran away after being presented with a mere fraction of the facts ans support. If you want to go there again, we can, but it didn't help you any.

don't build you house in the sand, again.

As for not hearing from me, I'm proud to report an excellent thanksgiving holiday break full of turkey and relaxation. I'll even throw in a plug for "Stranger than Fiction," as it far surpassed my expectations, and was thoroghly enjoyable. RL, I hardly checked my email over break; A2K posts were pretty low on the totem, dig.

Oh BTW, the only people exploiting the A2 bill are evangelists.

Glad you enjoyed Thanksgiving.

Regarding A2, I pointed out the bogus definition of 'cloning' used in A2 to show you that the amendment does NOT outlaw cloning.

I couldn't care less about the lists of supporters you posted.

Far from 'turning tail', I asked and I don't recall a specific reply :

If lots of people and / or organizations support a lie, does it become true?

Your lists of supporters are absolutely worthless. Were the list 10 times longer, it would still be irrelevant to the issue.

So, is your local university going to cash in on the new cloning biz in Missouri?

0 Replies

Quote:

Only a 9-month obligation, as if the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy were nothing! Go donate a kidney, if you want to risk your life and health for a stranger's convenience.

Whereas, aborting a six or seven month old fetus poses no risks, discomforts or dangers to a woman's health?

Btw, if your main goal is to pursue your personal pleasure at all costs, while not obligating yourself to becoming a parent, why not have a tubal ligation? Then you can screw around all you want to, without having to worry about becoming pregnant and getting an abortion. The procedure is reversible if you ever change your mind about having children.

But please, don't post and tell me that it's a risky procedure, while having an abortion is "perfectly safe."

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
Which would you choose for yourself -- the damage the woman may or may not[/i] suffer during pregnancy; or the 100% certain damage, DEATH, that the unborn will ALWAYS suffer in a successful abortion?

I'll answer yours when you answer mine. 50 embryos or a child? (For therein lies the answer to your question.)

you'd be a fool to expect that RL will just simply answer your question. He'll attack your question before answering it.

Don't hold your breathe, this waltz is all too familiar.

Well, Diest if you look back a few days you'll see how we've discussed why the conjured up 'lifeboat scenarios' which have no real relationship to the actual circumstances of the abortion question, seem to be the only questions Eorl shows great interest in.

When asked when is one a living human being, the 'definition' he gives 'proves' that one must be able to build a fire, and produce literature and music before one qualifies.

As I mentioned, I could've taken the easy way out and mentioned that the freezer will likely protect the embryos from the fire. So if you're gonna try your hand at you seem to think is a 'paradox' , you might as least try one with some actual difficulty.

I haven't heard much from you since I blew apart your argument regarding Missouri's Amendment 2. How have you been?

Is your local university going to cash in on A2 and get in on the millions now available in Missouri's cloning biz?

Don't even bring up A2. I believe you turned tail and ran away after being presented with a mere fraction of the facts ans support. If you want to go there again, we can, but it didn't help you any.

don't build you house in the sand, again.

As for not hearing from me, I'm proud to report an excellent thanksgiving holiday break full of turkey and relaxation. I'll even throw in a plug for "Stranger than Fiction," as it far surpassed my expectations, and was thoroghly enjoyable. RL, I hardly checked my email over break; A2K posts were pretty low on the totem, dig.

Oh BTW, the only people exploiting the A2 bill are evangelists.

Glad you enjoyed Thanksgiving.

Regarding A2, I pointed out the bogus definition of 'cloning' used in A2 to show you that the amendment does NOT outlaw cloning.

I couldn't care less about the lists of supporters you posted.

Far from 'turning tail', I asked and I don't recall a specific reply :

If lots of people and / or organizations support a lie, does it become true?

Your lists of supporters are absolutely worthless. Were the list 10 times longer, it would still be irrelevant to the issue.

So, is your local university going to cash in on the new cloning biz in Missouri?

Sigh* Oh RL, still a donkey with your carot in the mud. You don't care about the giant list of supporters because it doesn't support you viewpoint. There's no lie. The only lies I hear are the lies about what this is going to be used for.

No, sadly my university probably won't be doing much stem cell research as we are primarily a engineering school, I'm sure our brother school MU, however will be helping out in research as they have amuch larger and developed biology and medical department.

0 Replies

Stray Cat,

Laughing

Half a page of pure ad homs ?? Simply calling me a liar, and posting out-of-context? And you think my debating style seems immature??

Laughing

You seem to think I'm attacking you personally somehow. I'm not, I'm attacking your arguments. I'm nice as I can be on the personal level, I'm ferociously defending the poor women you would condemn to slavery and horrific backyard deaths (given the chance) . It's hard to sugar coat such things. The arrogance of your presumption simply doesn't allow for an entirely civil discussion. Can't handle it? Don't play.

You can see that a 5 year old is more valuable than an 8 week foetus, can you not also see that a 16 year girl with bad contraception is also worth more than an 8 week old foetus?

(btw the very definition of immature would be your insistence that those who support legal abortion are in favour of abortion.)

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
Which would you choose for yourself -- the damage the woman may or may not[/i] suffer during pregnancy; or the 100% certain damage, DEATH, that the unborn will ALWAYS suffer in a successful abortion?

I'll answer yours when you answer mine. 50 embryos or a child? (For therein lies the answer to your question.)

you'd be a fool to expect that RL will just simply answer your question. He'll attack your question before answering it.

Don't hold your breathe, this waltz is all too familiar.

Well, Diest if you look back a few days you'll see how we've discussed why the conjured up 'lifeboat scenarios' which have no real relationship to the actual circumstances of the abortion question, seem to be the only questions Eorl shows great interest in.

When asked when is one a living human being, the 'definition' he gives 'proves' that one must be able to build a fire, and produce literature and music before one qualifies.

As I mentioned, I could've taken the easy way out and mentioned that the freezer will likely protect the embryos from the fire. So if you're gonna try your hand at you seem to think is a 'paradox' , you might as least try one with some actual difficulty.

I haven't heard much from you since I blew apart your argument regarding Missouri's Amendment 2. How have you been?

Is your local university going to cash in on A2 and get in on the millions now available in Missouri's cloning biz?

Don't even bring up A2. I believe you turned tail and ran away after being presented with a mere fraction of the facts ans support. If you want to go there again, we can, but it didn't help you any.

don't build you house in the sand, again.

As for not hearing from me, I'm proud to report an excellent thanksgiving holiday break full of turkey and relaxation. I'll even throw in a plug for "Stranger than Fiction," as it far surpassed my expectations, and was thoroghly enjoyable. RL, I hardly checked my email over break; A2K posts were pretty low on the totem, dig.

Oh BTW, the only people exploiting the A2 bill are evangelists.

Glad you enjoyed Thanksgiving.

Regarding A2, I pointed out the bogus definition of 'cloning' used in A2 to show you that the amendment does NOT outlaw cloning.

I couldn't care less about the lists of supporters you posted.

Far from 'turning tail', I asked and I don't recall a specific reply :

If lots of people and / or organizations support a lie, does it become true?

Your lists of supporters are absolutely worthless. Were the list 10 times longer, it would still be irrelevant to the issue.

So, is your local university going to cash in on the new cloning biz in Missouri?

Sigh* Oh RL, still a donkey with your carot in the mud. You don't care about the giant list of supporters because it doesn't support you viewpoint. There's no lie. The only lies I hear are the lies about what this is going to be used for.

No, sadly my university probably won't be doing much stem cell research as we are primarily a engineering school, I'm sure our brother school MU, however will be helping out in research as they have amuch larger and developed biology and medical department.

Sadly, eh?

Oh come now, be creative. There's plenty of ways your chemistry and biology majors could cash in. Partnering with UMKC and lending your expertise in mathematics and computer modeling are promising avenues.

There's lots of money to be had in cloning in Missouri now. Don't you want some of it? Stowers Claus has goodies for all this year, now that the election's been bought.

Doubtless, your school will benefit, even if only indirectly from the projects that will be well financed in the other schools, thus freeing up money for yours as well. Don't be so pessimistic. That cloning money will work wonders for you, and silence any critics.

Now, you know that SCNT is cloning[/u][/i], and just because A2 says cloning is 'only when it's implanted' doesn't make it so.

Be honest about it, as you were previously. It's cloning.

Your giant list of supporters is supporting cloning, while claiming that they are not. You are ( or were) more honest than they. Why don't you stick to your guns?

0 Replies

If I cloned your liver, would it be cloning a human being? What about a sperm or egg? Would this be human cloning to you?

I think you need to understand better why the cloning of a human being is restricted before you take such a firm stance.

A2 is not creating human beings, bottom line. The giant list of supporters all know and understand that.

What are you so affraid of?

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

Choosing to abort a pregnancy that results from birth control failure IS taking responsibility. You may not agree with their choice, but they have the legal and, IMO, ethical right to exercise it. Not everyone can use the most effective methods of birth control, and some do not have the knowledge or self-discipline to use them effectively. People should have the right to enjoy sex (with consenting adults) without being obligated to become parents due to birth control failure, bad luck, or bad judgment.

baddog1 wrote:

Quote:

Why use birth control at all then? Just abort if you become pregnant!

Because birth control is cheaper and the hospital is too far away.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

If I cloned your liver, would it be cloning a human being? What about a sperm or egg? Would this be human cloning to you?

I think you need to understand better why the cloning of a human being is restricted before you take such a firm stance.

A2 is not creating human beings, bottom line. The giant list of supporters all know and understand that.

What are you so affraid of?

Why the bogus definition of cloning being 'implantation' if only livers are to be produced?

Don't act so naive.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
If I cloned your liver, would it be cloning a human being? What about a sperm or egg? Would this be human cloning to you?

I think you need to understand better why the cloning of a human being is restricted before you take such a firm stance.

A2 is not creating human beings, bottom line. The giant list of supporters all know and understand that.

What are you so affraid of?

Why the bogus definition of cloning being 'implantation' if only livers are to be produced?

Don't act so naive.

OMG...

Why is it so hard for you to answer questions? Just answer the question.

As for your question on the definition, I've seen you post three deferent definitions of cloning, none of which have been unanomous. If cloning is so elastically defined, you create more problems. HUMAN cloning, as in the duplication of a fully functional human being is what you seem to think is happening, and if that's not what you've got your panties in a twist about, then there's no need to worry.

Zero humans are being created.

Now... Answer the damn question.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
If I cloned your liver, would it be cloning a human being? What about a sperm or egg? Would this be human cloning to you?

I think you need to understand better why the cloning of a human being is restricted before you take such a firm stance.

A2 is not creating human beings, bottom line. The giant list of supporters all know and understand that.

What are you so affraid of?

Why the bogus definition of cloning being 'implantation' if only livers are to be produced?

Don't act so naive.

OMG...

Why is it so hard for you to answer questions? Just answer the question.

As for your question on the definition, I've seen you post three deferent definitions of cloning, none of which have been unanomous. If cloning is so elastically defined, you create more problems. HUMAN cloning, as in the duplication of a fully functional human being is what you seem to think is happening, and if that's not what you've got your panties in a twist about, then there's no need to worry.

Zero humans are being created.

Now... Answer the damn question.

Is this clear enough for you?

from http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4646.html

Quote:

Human therapeutic cloning involves the cloning of human embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells that can be used to repair tissues and organs. Unlike reproductive cloning, embryos for therapeutic cloning are grown in laboratory cultures and are not implanted in the female reproductive tract.

The human embryos produced for therapeutic cloning are indistinguishable from those for reproductive cloning.

Then what is the difference? Why, where they are growing, of course.

One grows in the lab, the other is implanted in a womb.

The SCNT procedure to produce them is the same and the product is the same. The only difference is where the embryo is.

But either way, you've cloned a human embryo.

Don't act like everyone else is so naive, even if you wish to keep pretending that you are.

A2 tried to define cloning as 'implantation'.

SCNT is cloning, whether the product is implanted , or not.

0 Replies

Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know