will, wouldn't you say that it's just a matter of deciding whether the end can justify the means?

That's a question we must never answer for anyone else.

will, I'm sorry to hear about your grandmother......

As for Cabo and those like him, I try not to hate them, even though I have even more grounds for doing so........ I respect peoples' rights to be ignorant (Cabo continously ignored my question), to be stubborn (he finally said he just wouldn't answer it), and to say give pathetic arguments they cannot stand up for (Cabo ran at the end of page three after I had refuted what he said). Although, it still pisses me off.....:mad:

and that was not in fact a flame, I was drawing conclusions from the evidence at hand.:D

No I wouldn't, in fact. I would say that religious people have screwed notions as to the meaning of life and death.

Abortion isn't murder, in the same way as an egg go unfertilised isn't murder.

Stem cell research isn't murder as much as scraping off some cells from the inside of my mouth and letting them grow on an agar plate isn't murder. Or me eating a steak for dinner isn't murder.

Intellegent life is when you learn, remember, react and communicate.

Death is not a passage from this world to the next, it is a definite end.

The bottom line: religion screws up peoples notions of life and death. And they subsequently are unable to apply common sense to situations involving them.

I guess what I mean is, nothing magical happens when an egg is fertilised by a sperm. It is the exact same process which happens in all sexual animals. Also, nothing magical happens when you die, you simply cease to be.

Why the childish bullshit?
I stuck around for a long time as people attcked me personally for what I stated. No one was able to refute my argument other than to rehash everything that was irrelevant to my position anyway. Here is the basis of what I said...

Now if you care to give a rational argument as to where you can draw the line when life starts, I'll listen and respond. Otherwise this is not worth my time. I am not going to run away. But don't try to skirt the issue I posed.

Let me ask something. If you had sex with a woman,and a few days later she said she missed her period, would you say she's possibly pregnant or possibly someone you should dump?

FYI: Pregancy doesn't start a week or two later, it starts at conception.

Thank you sherlock. And also, FYI, I wouldn't dump her. That would make me immoral*.

But was is inside her is not a person, it is something capable of becoming a person. There is a difference.

A fetus is made up of stem-cells, which are cells that are capable of becoming specialist cells that are used in human tissues, but not found in adults.

Thus, as a fetus is made up of cells capable of making up human tissues, we can say that a fetus itself is something that is capable of becoming a human.

Thankyou and goodnight.


* Interesting side note, the christian union at my university had a debate earlier this year entitled "Is there such a thing as a moral athiest". I think that sums up how far wrong religion is.

Oh, but wait before you go to bed... Or do you see where this is going and want to leave?

I thought one of the arguments was that stem cells were not a fetus.

But that still doesn't address the crux of the issue...
If its not human, then at what point does it become human?

You were wrong. :)

That was a figure of speech, its 3 pm here.

It does directly address the crux of the issue. A fetus/embryo becomes human once all its cells are specialised.

This thread is about cloning and the use of stem cells, so my point about stem cells not being human holds firm in the context of this thread.

Did you like, not read my post or something?

He only chooses to read the parts he wants to hear.

Yeah I read it, but I don't buy it. Obviously you chose to ignore my question. Why? Do you think your answer might be used as an argument against you?

If the stem cells in question are not human, then why are they called human stem cells? If they are not human, if they left alone to develop in the womb, why do they develop into a human baby?

Did you forget the simple fact that they are living cells containing human DNA?

Aren't the stem cells used for research going to be destroyed regardless of testing so isn't it better to have them be destroyed and help save someone else instead of just tossed away like trash?

Oh really? :confused: You might look a little deeper...

This is what I've been saying all along.

Right, cells I can scrape out of the inside of my cheek are human skin cells. They also contain human DNA. But it is not murder to wash them off my hands. It is not abuse to stain them with dye and look at them under a microscope (like I did in science class when I was 12).

They are called human stem cells because they are stem cells capable of becoming part of human tissue.

When given norishment and a suitable environment (not left alone, mind, the placenta has some purpous!) they can develop into a number of humans. But they themselves are not human, for the reasons outlined in my post 6 posts up.

As for me not addressing this:
"I thought one of the arguments was that stem cells were not a fetus."
I did address it when I said:
"A fetus/embryo becomes human once all its cells are specialised."
By which I ment, doesn't contain any more stem cells.


Any other querys regarding the content of my posts?

germ, my argument is that the end does not justify the means. Your argument would be valid if the cells just magically appeared in the lab. They do not. They are the result of an abortion, which by my viewpoint equates to murder.

That comes closer to a valid argument, but I still don't buy it because I am talking about a human life, not about some cells. I believe a human life is created at conception, that one cell contains the sum total of the human being at that moment. The longer we live, the more we physically change. We don't develop into a human life, we have that from the start. If human life starts at some point other than conception, anyone could define that point to be at whatever point is convenient for their purposes. Hence my experiment example.

Also, if it starts at some point other than conception, its reasonable to say it ends at some point other than death. Now you can off old people, if you so desire.

A society that kills its own children is morally bankrupt.

Well if you can't do anything about the ends, only something about the means then you have to work with that, eh? Now, these stem cells are going to continue to be available for whatever reason and there is still the choice of "try and help save a life or not". Now if you want to sit there and stick your fingers in your ears and have a blindfold on to block out reality, that's fine by me, but there are other fucking people out there suffering that can benefit and your warped idea of morales somehow doesn't apply to them? You have more sympathy for a cluster of cells that cannot even feel the pain of this world than for a person that cries everyday hoping that a guardian angel will come down and save them? Do you have no heart?

Nothing magical happens at conception.

An angel doen not come down from heaven and does not sprinkle pixie dust on the inside of the woman.

Two cells combine and DNA merges. A resulting cell is produced. This buds repeatedly into a number of stem cells.

What you have here is something that could potentially develop into one, two, or even three humans if it splits.

So, if I were to kill one identicle twin, the other one WOULD NOT DIE. That is because each of these cells has the potential to become a human.

Similarly, if a stem cell fails to grow (as with all cells, this is a very possible outcome) then a cell dies. A life is not lost. Because it isn't a person yet. It is just a bunch of cells capable of becoming a person, or two or three.

This does not mean that life ends at any other point than the ceaseing of brain, heart and muscle activity.

A fetus is not a child, it is a bunch of cells capable of becoming one or two or more children.


To back up germs point. People have different beliefs than you. So people are going to have abortions whether you like it or not. These stem cells that are aborted COULD SAVE PEOPLES LIVES. What right do you have to say that they can't?

Because when you do block this research from happening you are letting people die. When they could otherwise be saved. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF OTHERS.

No angels, pixies, or whatever, but I'd bet someone spinkles something...LOL If you say that a human life is not created, then we are no different than animals. If you say it is not created at conception, then my question still stands: where do you draw the line at when life is created? I am not interested in what looks like human cells or whatever, I am asking about human life.

So what you are saying is that we can kill of all but one of each set of identical twins cause there is only one life there? I'm sure most sets of twins would disagree...

The fallacy here is there is a difference between something dieing due to natural causes and someone taking an active part in destroying a life.

Really? so if brain activity ceases, a person has no life? Go off a comatose vegetable in the hospital, and see what happens...

So what? It is still a living human.

I am not saying the researchers can't do something. They can do whatever they want within the law (and most likely they will do whatever they please anyway). But, I have as much right to express my beliefs as you or anyone else. It is not my fault if, at some point in the future, the majority choose to listen to my argument over yours.

Don't waste your time trying to lay a guilt trip on me. It won't work.

Justify ignoring the pain of others for your conservative values and you might one day have a point. Until then go polish your guns and blow up some abortion clinics you ignorant right wing sheep.

By the way if the word ignorant insults you, go read the definition of it.

1) We are no different to animals, we just have more advanced brains and motor functions. Why do you think we are better than animals?

2) My point is that a bunch of stem cells can spawn any number of lives. So how many lives does any one bunch of stem cells have? You can't say one, as the identical twins would disagree.

3) A life is not yet there.

4) A comatose vegitable still has heart function, thus still alive as I said.

5) see 3

6) Sure you have the right to express your view, but you have no right to press it onto others who could otherwise be saving human life through research.

7) I wasn't laying a guilt trip, I was outlining why exactly this research is needed. To save human life. Currently you are blocking this, costing human life. That point is core to what I think. And is why you are responsible for the loss of life of others.

Life, quite obviously, doesn't begin at conception. It can't. It's a process, begun A LONG LONG time ago, and with no end in sight. The sperm and egg cells that merge during conception were alive and came from living things, correct? So how can life begin at this arbitrary point, when it's already been going? Sure, a soul might be created at this moment, but no one has proved what exactly a soul is. The impression I get from your stated beliefs is that you believe humans have souls and are therefore seperate from animals (if I'm wrong in my interpretation of your beliefs, my apologies). In theory, every living thing on this planet could be descended from a single living cell, which has split and diversified and specialized, time and time again. You say: Life begins at the point of conception. So what were the cells before the point of conception? Dead? Non-living? Souless?

You profess a belief in God, yet you don't believe we're different than animals?

I would say life exists - at least one if you like.

That is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. In my opinion, you are wrong.

So now instead of having all of the functions you just have to have some of the above? OK, a cell is capable of movement.

I have no right to tell others how I feel? If that's the best you can come up with, then this discussion is pointless.

Could you please explain to me how I am blocking anything? I didn't realize posting my opinion in a public forum caused the Winamp Police to enforce what I say. WTF? Maybe you are afraid of the truth?

[OT]i get so f'ing tired of ppl that argue like that "afraid of the truth?" who says your OPINION is the FUCKING TRUTH? and you have no right, no right whatsoever to accuse someone of that, unless you would consider that questions towards you own beliefs[/OT]

ANyways, i am agnostic so i believe in a higher power. and i also believe man and animal are created rather equally. i dont however believe in creationism. i believe religion has screwed up many things, including science. For people to close their eyes and refuse scientific fact because they believe in GOD...that is ignorant, holier than thou BS.

umm...yes, i am right and you are wrong. I have opinions, while you have INCORRECT OPINIONS. GOD is right, you and science are wrong. This is no arguement i care listening to.

and you have a pretty big double standard if you are gonna go asking ppl questions when you urself wont answer other ppl's questions.


[BREATHS IN, BREATHS OUT]

I do not believe in god, that was a quote from a Monty Python (brit comedy group) film that was parodying the catholic faith. I am an Athiest, and have never believed in anything I couldn't deduce for myself.

When I say "You are blocking.." I mean you in the plural form. And by you I mean right wing american conservatives, who are stopping/trying to stop americas scientists from performing vital research.

Yes you're right, its my opionion. You also have an opinion, and that opinion when pressed onto the political establishment is stopping life saving research. Have I not made this clear in all my posts? I am starting to feel that you are continually and deliberatly misunderstanding what I am saying.

How on earth am I afraid of the truth, whenever did I express fear? You are making less and less sense.

We are risen apes. Not fallen angels. If you are a creationist I will cease this discussion now as creationists are the most foolish people on the earth and not worth my debate.

Ok I admit it was a cheap shot. Sorry, I was pissed at the time.

I never refused scientific fact based on a belief in God, on the contrary, I asked someone to come forward with proof that human life started at a point other than at conception. What was presented to me was opinion not fact.

That is bullshit slander that has no part here. I never said anyone was wrong, I simply stated my opinion and asked others to show evidence I was wrong. Just because I reject other's opinions, doesn't make them or me wrong. It just means we have differing opinions. When scientific FACT is presented it will be different.

What question did I not answer?

Why then are you trying to discuss theology with me then? I have repeatedly said in this thread that I don't wish to get into a discussion of religion here - to open up another thread on that topic. Since you are an atheist, I could simply reject everything you say out of hand because you place no value on human life. I won't do that.

Then say right wing conservatives if that is what you mean.

That my opinion is stopping reasearch is plain unadulterated bullshit. I could easily say your opinion when pressed onto the political establishment is allowing injustice to occur. I don't misunderstand what you say, I simply reject your position. Since no one can say for certain that human life begins at some time other than conception, I feel we have to give life the benefit of the doubt.

I never said we were fallen angels, what's your point here? You're not scoring any points by bringing religion into the debate since you're an atheist. I believe we are risen apes too. BTW: I agree with your opinion of creationists.

And that's all you're ever going to get. Since the very definition of life is still constrained to the realm of philosophy, it's a contentious issue to try and define where it begins, or indeed ends.

But if you are not a creationist, how can you believe that we are better than animals?

As far as the my opinion as to the creation of life, please see Gonzoteks post. I heartily agree with what he said.

I will not go into my reaction to your statment that athiests place no value on human life. However, that statement makes me dislike you more.

You feel that stem cell research is unjust. I say your (plural) moral position on this matter is directly and adverly effecting the progress of medecine, science and humanity in general. Not to mention the effect on patients.

Thank you Russ! Therfore we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

At a massive cost of human suffering?

If you were in a car and saw a dead fetus on the road, would you swerve into a crowd of people to avoid it? Currently thats what you are doing.

For the sake of dubuious life you are adversly affecting real life.

I believe we have a soul and we evolved. If you want a further discussion on this topic open a new thread.

OK...
Yeah I believe in a soul.
Yeah we all could have evolved from a single germ on an alien's candy bar wrapper.
Dead? No.
Non-living? No.
Soulless? Yes.
FYI: this is the last time I will discuss religious beliefs in this thread.
You said yourself you equate human life with an animal's life...
... As far as disliking me, water off a duck's back.

Already been discussed.
It fail to see how it would be the same... I would be actively killing or injuring someone. Researchers will find another way of doing the needed research, they always do. Why not develop methods to take stem cells from the prospective patient instead of depending on abortion to generate the raw material?

Because adults don't have or create stem cells. They are only created in embryos. That is how this discussion was started, the use of cloning to create embryos thus stem-cells to treat crippling deseases and to save lives.

You seem to take the hard work of scientists for granted and not appriciate how hard it is to continue battling illnesses that you (plural) get. Yet even though the same people say that this use is valid and needed for the good of humanity you refuse to let them perform this research. If you hold their work in high regard can't you hold their opinion in high regard too?

By activly trying to stop research you (plural) are indirectly killing real people with real lives. Not to mention condemning people with crippling illnesses of the brain to years of suffering.

All for the sake of some cells whos claim to life cannot be decided.

Hmmm... I'll have to look it up, but I believe you're wrong here. I seem to remember that adults make stem cells in their bone marrow. Some experimentation had been done that gave promising results using them to repair damaged nerve tissue. The stem cells were not as high of quality as those from an embryo though.

Excuse me, why would I not have an appreciation for the work of scientists? Do you know my credentials? What gives you the right to sit on a pedestal and criticize me?

I (singular) do not try to stop any research. I do speak out on the murder of innocents. If that causes your hatred, tough shit! Don't worry too much though. It seems there are enough individuals that share your opinion to prevent abortion from being criminalized again. At least for the time being.

Its the same right you have to be uninfomed.

I want to acknowlage that you are holding medicine back. The reason I hate you is you're too stubborn to listen to and appreciate the reasons presented by the same scientists who just want to help save your (plural) lives.

The fact that you (plural) are preventing research that could one day improve the quality of life for a close relative, and many, many others is secondary.

You seems to take this stance based on some opinion recived from someone who got to a position of trust by just knowing the contents of one book. And this makes me think less of your (plural or singular) opinion.

I would get back into this debate but I already refuted enough of Cabo's arguments way back when. Anyway, as I said Cabo, my last post as not in fact childish bullshit, it was made from conclusions drawn from your own actions. (even if it was a bit childish.... ;))

as for the adult stem cells, yeah, at first scientists thought they would work too. but then when they did experiments they didn't get the job done or something like that. There was an article in time magazine on that a while back.

since the comatose vegetble argument has come up a few times, I'd like to say that 1) will had a point 2)in florida, the husband of a "vege" wished to cut her life support to let her RIP (she had been a vege for 11 years or something like that). The parents of the vege however wanted to keep her on life support. Their defense was a video tape that showed her blinking her eyes. They tried to argue that this showed that she was still "alive" in a human way, with a working brain etc (even though it does not). So there goes your "but they are always keeping the veges alive" argument. 3) the idea behind the veges is that they might wake up someday, which has happened before. A group of unpecialized cells however will not just "wake up."

hopefully that's all i'm gonna say for a while.

Mikeflca, its just one example, just like any one of yours or anyone elses. Take one example and its easy to refute anything.
Will, I've had enough of your hate bullshit. Even after repeated requests to keep things civil, you still spew cut-downs. You simply repeat the same arguments to hear the same rebuttal from me. I told you before, if you had something of value to say, I would respond. I see no need at all to respond further to attempted insults. If you've nothing left of value to say, then I'm done here. And don't insinuate I'm running away, I come here most every day and at least look around.

yeah its extremely extremely harder to extract adult stem cells...its like a 7% success rate for extraction...near impossible to use this as a resouceful tool when you can only get like 1 or 2 cells per trial. thats why fetus are the way to go....

"Mikeflca, its just one example, just like any one of yours or anyone elses. Take one example and its easy to refute anything. "

Quite frankly I'm not sure what you meant by that....:weird:

as for you talking to will about being tired of his hate bullshit, you should take a look at your own posts.......saying athiests have no respect for human life......And quite frankly I side with will even if what you call his hate bullshit can get out of hand. your last post implied that because he says he hates/dislikes you the rest of what he said has no importance. The funny thing is, way back on the first few pages, you would simply keep posting the same argument when it would be refuted, and now you accuse will of doing the same. thats a double standard, no doubt about it.

*would begin ranting but controls himself for now* ;)

Will, the crux of your arguement seems to hang on this post...

This kind of post really pisses me off! An antheist will go to the end of the world to blast a theist for having certian convictions that are the binding to their arguments for being based in their theism, but finds it completely acceptable to to use their atheist convictions to likewise bind their arguments.

Seriously. Think about it. Holding That to kind of double standard will always lead to childish behavior and self-righteousness.


A few "stem cell" clear ups.
A "stem cell" is any cell that can multiply and develop into many other types of cells.
These are found in an adults body, as well as a fetus. A Zygote (a fertilized egg) is a stem cell.

Common places stem cells are found (and relevent to the topic on hand):
Bone Marrow
Umbilical linings
Fetus
Pre-fetus development (why these are two places a little later)

Now there are different kind of stem cells, because not all stem cells create everything. Example, the stem cells in bone marrow are stem cells because they can change into any kind blood cell. But they are narrow rage stem cells because they can only change into any type of blood cell.
The younger you go, the wider the range of the stem cell (the more differt kinds of cells it can become).

(a baby is not considered a fetus until it reaches the point that it is undeniably human by sight. This is around Weeks 9-10)


Now, fetal development and the real arguement here:
1.Sperm and egg join to be one cell called a zygote.
2. this zygote splits itself by a process of clevage ;) untill it becomes a Morula.
3. This morula forms itsself into a blastocyst (a hollow ball with two layers: the inside layer eventually becomes the child, while the outside layer becoms the placenta. Important: the cells in these two layers are identical as of yet, they would still all be level 1 stem cells (i made the level one nomer up to explain))
Begin week two
4. The Blastocyst implants itself into the uterus lining
5. Almost imediately after implantation comes the process of Gastrulation.
During Gastrulation, a point on the blastocyst wall moves inward like a finger poking a baloon. It continue althe way through and in the process aligning certian cells to begin development in these three catigories:
Ectoderm (skin,hair,teeth,nervous system)
Mesoderm (muscle)
Endoderm (internal organs)
These are "level 2" stem cells, because their range of potential cells is limited.
It is these stem cells that are found in the Umbilical linings.

It is also these "2 tier" stem cells that reasearchers want for their projects. (they dont want 1st tier cells because they are two small to work with)

Now the real arguement here:
Rather than jumping through the loops of obtaining Umbilical stem cells, reaseachers think it would be easy to just fertilize an egg in lab and then put it in a dish till gastrulation and rip it apart and use the cells.

Now that I have told you guys the facts (I have my human bio notes from last sem. sitting in front of me), here is my opinion:

I believe life begins at Gastrulation. Nothing truly amazing happens at fertilization. And considering only one in three blastocysts implant themselves, fertilization is even less spectacular.

But the process of Gastulation is an amazing process. It says to me, "hi. now that i have nutrients im gonna develop"
So i'm not for ripping apart a gastrulated development, as researchers want to do. Furthermore Im not really for compromising messing with a blastocyst.
It seems like it would be a step closer to ripping apart gastrulated developments, and I want to make sure that they are protected.

This argument isn't going to get anywhere because both views are valid.

It's not a case of stubbornness, it's a case of how much you value human life. And if you take the (traditionally Christian) view that life begins at conception, and that every life is "sacred", for want of a better word, then an anti-abortion view is definitely morally justifiable. However, I find it somewhat narrow-minded.

My view is utilitarian. I don't give a flying fuck, if you'll pardon the vernacular, whether the embryo is alive or not. If the abortions of 1000 embryos, that weren't going to live anyway, can save the lives of countless millions of adults who are definitely alive, then there's no contest. That's obviously the right thing to do. The big bonus with this view is it's logically justifiable, as well as morally, since it doesn't depend on an arbitrary definition of life.