I could understand your point of view if you could clarify one thing for me:
If there not aborted...they do live.

I am assuming here that we live in a country which legally allows abortions, and that the research is being done on embryos aborted for other (i.e. social) reasons, and donated to medical science. I doubt many women would conceive a child for the sole reason of having it aborted for the purposes of research.

So then what your saying is that legal abortions are required to supply this stem cell research.

Well, because I don't support abortion, I then can't say that I support a science that requires something I consider a wrong.

Taking stem cells from an adult to grow him a new Kidney. Good.

taking an aborted (bad) embryo cloning it, and then destroying those clones. Bad.

Well, of course that turns this debate from a medical research debate to an abortion debate, but I think while abortion is still legal and still happening, there shouldn't be any objection to medical research on the aborted embryos.

Exactly. I couldn't possibly agree more.

Thank you shakey for so elquently stating that position. I shied away from that type of discussion because I didn't want to start a whole discussion on religious beliefs.

His "position" is the cause of millions of people not having treatment in the future for the diseases that they suffer day in and day out with. Oh yeah, how very fucking eloquent. Save the embryos that feel nothing but let the adults who feel pain just die. I don't get people's obsession with younger people's lives being more valuable than older people's. No logic at all.

agreed. If they are ALREADY aborted, why not use them?

Feel.
Well, let me tell you how i define "feel".
When something has the ability to respond to stimuli I then say it can feel.
example: I've had an aquarium for a couple of years now. There has been a debate among fish keepers of whether or not fish can feel pain. And the line I decided to take is that because they can respond to stimuli, they can feel and should be euthanized rather than just flushed down the toilet or something else where they die a slow death.

So, when that blastocyst implants itself, and then starts gasturlation, because it is recieving nutrients. That is response to stimuli. It can then feel.

Now am I asking you guys to believe what I believe? No. All I ask is that given a few logical definitions of things, You guys understand that my position is one that makes rational sense.

hahahahha
You must be joking. So now we're comparing a goldfish to this precious "human soul" that you're trying to preserve? Things that feel pain have a nervous system. These globs of goo that can save REAL human beings have no nervous system to speak of. Seriously you don't really believe these things you're saying do you? Are you enjoying lying to yourself and maybe a few fools who buy this load of horse shit? Come now.

Yeah (@shakey), so when a corporate network processes information and responds to it, it can feel. Perfect logic.

I pressed a key on my keyboard, and my computer starts up. Does that mean it can feel too?

A chemical reaction will respond when I exert "pressure" on it, and it responds. Is that alive? Is it feeling "pain"?

Look up "Le Chatlier" in Google.

watch out, germ IS a clone.

Germ: So anyone that disagrees with you is open to ridicule now?

I agree:up: you have to have a nervous sytem of some sort to feel anything.

IMO, yes, if there is scientific proof to disproove the opposing opinion.

You're Tarron Daschle, right? Haven't seen you around in a while...

No one has been able to 'scientifically prove' that human life begins at some other time than conception. What something 'looks like', 'smells like', or whatever doesn't count as scientific evidence. Regardless of that, you should not ridicule or say you hate someone in this forum.

Will, your post went like this...
Notice that you said "To you and those...". So, yes, your hate message was directed at me specifically, no matter how much backpedaling you do. I expected better treatment from a mod.

Maybe you (plural) need to review this...
Rules of Civil Discourse
... in particular, rules 2 & 3.

hahahahahaha
My how the "mighty" have fallen.

How's that?

You can respect someones right to an opinion and hate them and their side at the same time.

When I said "To you and those who are anti-science, anti-research, anti-patient and above all anti-humanity" I was clearly addressing the side, and any member of that side.

Also, I did say (on the last page):
"Its the same right you have" when you last tried to lambast me for critisizing your position.

Hence, I fall within the rules.

I'm an equal opportunaties hater.

Actually what you did say was that you had the same right to be uninformed. Too bad I missed that earlier! LOL

Its obvious the rules don't state that you can't hate. But, they do say that you can't express that hate against an individual. Sorry, but your expression of hate doesn't fall within the rules.

I have helpfully highlighted all occurences of the word hate in Xerxes' post.

You'll note that I have not verged on anger at any point in this discussion, and have kept respectful (like I said, you can hate someone and respect them).

Plus, if this is the level of debate you have reached on the topic of stem cells, then I feel it says a lot for the validity of your argument.

If you want a list of posts where members have expressed hate against something or someone, it would be a very very long list.

That was a real pathetic attempt to humiliate me.
Since you posted the rules that I linked to, I would have hoped you would have read them. It does say something in there about bashing and something about respect. Being polite, which you were, is not the same as being respectful, which you were not.
This says nothing about the validity of my argument. I have to hand it to you, you are a master of spin. Several times in this thread I have tried to bow out because the debate was getting nowhere. Each time someone has decided that I am open to slamming or ridicule. This time I was simply reponding to the bullshit that was started after I stopped posting on the topic.
Are you saying "everyone's doing it, so it must be OK"? Try telling that to a cop the next time you get a ticket and see how far that argument goes.

That was an attempt to show you that I have not broken any rules. Half way through I started indicating when "you" was singular or plural. Before that, I thought that plural was implied.

I have no case to answer. If any other moderator disagrees, I invite them to advise me.

If anything, these last few posts have been an attempted attack on my integrity, which I resent, being as it is, over this very sensitive matter.

[edit: "I have to hand it to you, you are a master of spin" I prefer the term master debator. Which, not coincedentally, my hand has to do with!]

Cabo, Just get out of this thread. This is what I have done, because no one has yet to put up a open-minded, respectful post since I last posted.
I've done this on numerous occasions, because people here want to argue everything to death, without comming to any kind of understanding.
Sadly, this kind of antiintellectual, antiamerican, geek bullyism is become out of control of these forums and in the american and international community itself.
Let them think, "hey we won".
Don't worry about fueling their superiority complex.
It will all crash on them eventually.

mikm, Germ, Gonzotek, billyvnilly and mikeflca are all americans who have posted opinions contrary to yours in the last 2 pages of this thread. How can you say that my opinion is unamerican? By numbers alone (2 against 5) my opionion is quite pro-american.

You can call me anti-intellectual, but that is simply not true. I go to the top university in the UK (except admissions are based on merit only, as all universitys in the UK are cheap and the same cost).

Just because you disagree with someone, is it not unfair to brand them with these labels?

I think, as a general matter of style, that taking issue with the debating style of the other party tends to indicate that one doesn't have an adequate response to their point.

I don't think that either party has intended to insult the other personally, however the constant bickering about semantics and irrelevant points does make it rather hard to read back through and make a decision.

As I said earlier, I too have done this before. I couldn't care less if they 'win' or not. I'm comfortable with my belief and my ego don't need stroking. However, I didn't join the Winamp Forums to be slammed or belittled. I joined to help people out and have some fun. I came under attack almost immediately after joining. Maybe I got off on the wrong foot. My first post may have pissed off certain people, I don't know.

Anyway, y'all have a drink on me! Mas Tequila!:D

What I'm having trouble understanding is that why everyone cannot simply agree to disagree. By this point, I think everyone's opinions have been well established, quite frankly, you are all starting to throw bullshit at each other. Out of the sandbox, kids.

p.s. I personally feel a little iffy on the subject of cloning. I worry about the scientist that are out there, who care not for ethics.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. There are differing opinions and no amount of bitching will resolve them.

appreciaton from Russ? :eek: *faints*





:D

"subjective". I go to the top university in the UK, and it ain't your one :D

As for the rest of the argument, it's all gotten very puerile.

Attacking someone for their beliefs or convictions is wrong, but openly discussing their beliefs and convictions with them is not.

There sure have been a lot of attacks recently.

If you would read more carefully, you would see that Im not talking about this thread or even you in peticular.
Secondly, if you honestly think going to a good school makes you intellectual, you are greatly mistaken, almost to the point of being a lost cause.

Uh... you sure you're not talking about us and this thread in paticular?

uh...yes.
[edit]I'm 100% positive that I'm not ...
[edit]talking about this thread in peticular...
[edit]on the topics Will brought up.

this is like writting a legally binding document. Every time i reread what i post, i have to add a new clase, because if there's some posible way it can be misinterpeted, someone will ([edit] misinterpret it([edit]what I post))

ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok

back on topic:step in the right/wrong direction ???

Don't get me wrong, but I don't understand the whole cloning thing.
Why clone an embryo?
couldn't you just fertilize an egg whenever you needed a new embryo?
Their are gallons of eggs and sperm sitting around, and in order to clone (understanding that their doing this the same way as they did dolly, from an earlier post) It takes like a couple hundred trys to get an egg to come alive. Why bother?

you arent cloning the actual embryo. you take embryo and extract stem cells. stem cells can be influenced to grow and divide a certain way-->will turn into the cells you want to "clone". Stem cells also have the capablitiy to produce progenter(down-stream specific cells) and another stem cell during division. so they can create many multiple copies. the word "clone" does have many meanings.

well women can donate eggs, yes. and men can donate sperm, yes. But they must be incubated inside of a surrogate mother in order for them to produce viable cells. The placenta has many proteins/vitamins etc. necessary for cells to grow. it is impossible to grow technical "test tube babies" afaik test tube babies are ttb until they are inserted into a surrogate mother.[edit]dolly was ttb[/edit]

@snake, obviously you are not for abortion. so you obviously dont agree with doing stem cell research on aborted babies (correct me if im wrong) but lets say the fetus aborted for unknown reasons? so baby is already dead (doctor didnt kill it)...can scientists use this fetus...and for arguements sake, parents donated body to science. keep in mind, babies are not used...im talking 30-50 cells.(this is when scientists take them)

I just saw an interview with the scientist in charge of this resarch on BBC news.

What they actually do is take an unfertilized egg (the kind that women produce monthly) and put the neucleus from a cell of the patient into it.

This egg now has the same DNA as the patient, but has never been fertilized.

It it not allowed to develop past the stem-cell stage, and the stem cells are taken and used in research to one day treat all kinds of crippling illnesses of the body and brain.

Stem cells produced this way can form any human tissue, unlike stem cells directly from the donor.

By both you're qualifiers (gestation and fertilization) it has not been granted a new life by god.

This research sheds a ray of hope for the familiys of sufferes of parkinsons, altzimers and many many other illnesses :up: