Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    "As you know, you give birth with the technology you have. They're not the technology you might want or wish to have at a later time."
    Wishing is irrelevant. The point is that if we're going to be objective about it, we should ignore the technological limitations. Obviously the technology is going to improve over time and change what 'viable' becomes, but that does not change what the 'fetus' is. It may not be the easy or rationalizing way, but if we're going to try to be objective about it, it's the logical thing.
    You also may want to look into the clinical definition of birth to clear up the above referenced confusion.
    I've no confusion on birth. I'm trying to understand your particular frame of reference. I understand that you'd prefer to just be glib and dismissive, but that's not going to do anything productive, so I guess if that's your tack, we'll just go our own courses.
    By pragmatic reasoning, and by ethic, one must recognize that the fetus' 'host' is a legally defined person.
    And that is totally irrelevant to being objective, is it not? Legal definitions are wholly subjective within their jurisdiction.
    It may not be the easy or sentimental way, but we're a nation of laws where decisions must be made outside of emotion.
    I think you're getting confused now. I'm not talking about emotion or laws.
    Within that framework, the clinical determination is between physician and 'host'.
    And this determination is obviously not objective either.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #22  
    Legal definitions are wholly subjective within their jurisdiction.
    This is where I lean more toward being a libertarian as I agree with this premise. The issue of when life begins, becomes viable, etc. are all very gray areas and subjective and that subjectiveness is commonly influenced heavily by religious beliefs and localized societal norms. Thus I do feel Roe v Wade goes too far as it ignores the localized norms established in a given state. Yet, I also believe in the separation of church and state and since this issue is so closely wed to religion...and one might argue Christian-Judea religion...I don't think the federal government can completely ignore the localities whereby their norms don't believe the soul enters the cells at the moment of conception, etc.

    So what do we do? Well perhaps Roe v Wade needs to be overturned and instead a new federal law to protect the interests of those that do not believe that a non-viable grouping of cells constitutes life are free to exercise their rights within x-days of the pregnancy...let’s say 60 days. Then leave it up to each state if they want to implement laws that make this broader or not depending upon the norms/values of their state. Of course you could take this to a city by city or block by block level but that would be impractical.

    It may well be that something like this is more moderate and while it surely won't appease the most right/left of the issue I predict it would satisfy an overwhelming majority. If the left wants a more liberal extension of this base law then they can move to states that have more liberal laws. If the right wants to abolish it outright then they can focus more of their attention on educating their parishioners that abortion is evil not matter when it is completed.

    Now what does this all have to do with adult stem cell research? Dunno….still waiting for an answer on that one.
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #23  
    Some matters/rights are so fundamental that there should not be an allowance for discretion at the State level, IMO, one's healthcare among them.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    This is where I lean more toward being a libertarian as I agree with this premise.
    I don't lean. I am (little and big L, AAMOF).
    The issue of when life begins, becomes viable, etc. are all very gray areas and subjective and that subjectiveness is commonly influenced heavily by religious beliefs and localized societal norms.
    This is definitely something I disagree with. Perhaps the definition of 'human life' can be considered a gray area, but an embryo is a living creature. Whether it carries the legal status of a person is where it gets gray. Also, viability is pretty well defined to approximately 24-25 weeks gestational and a weight of more than 500 grams. That's about a 50-50 shot from a statistical standpoint, which goes up about 10 percent a week until 29 weeks where it's pretty much gravy after 30 weeks. That's our current technological limitation. I'll be interested to see the debate shift when we acheive an artificial womb (if I'm still alive then).
    Yet, I also believe in the separation of church and state and since this issue is so closely wed to religion...and one might argue Christian-Judea religion...I don't think the federal government can completely ignore the localities whereby their norms don't believe the soul enters the cells at the moment of conception, etc.
    This is another problem with trying to address it objectively. I couldn't care less about that aspect. If such a thing as a soul exists, it can't be measured currently, so bringing it up only clouds the debate.
    So what do we do? Well perhaps Roe v Wade needs to be overturned and instead a new federal law to protect the interests of those that do not believe that a non-viable grouping of cells constitutes life are free to exercise their rights within x-days of the pregnancy...let’s say 60 days.
    The problem is that neither 'side' will agree on the way the debate is framed. We're all ultimately just groups of cells. If we slip into a coma, we're just as non-viable as being in the womb. We can't survive without a tube pumping nutrients into us.
    Then leave it up to each state if they want to implement laws that make this broader or not depending upon the norms/values of their state. Of course you could take this to a city by city or block by block level but that would be impractical.

    It may well be that something like this is more moderate and while it surely won't appease the most right/left of the issue I predict it would satisfy an overwhelming majority.
    That's why it'll never happen.
    If the left wants a more liberal extension of this base law then they can move to states that have more liberal laws. If the right wants to abolish it outright then they can focus more of their attention on educating their parishioners that abortion is evil not matter when it is completed.

    Now what does this all have to do with adult stem cell research? Dunno….still waiting for an answer on that one.
    Typical thread drift. They take on a life of their own.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Some matters/rights are so fundamental that there should not be an allowance for discretion at the State level, IMO, one's healthcare among them.
    I don't disagree with you at all - but I wasn't addressing the issue of rape, incest, whether the woman's health is at risk, etc. I fully advocate exceptions in whatever abortion laws are passed.

    Putting exceptions aside, we should be able to move to this middle on this and find some common ground. I'm sorry but whether you are an atheist, Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, etc. an abortion in the 6th month of pregnancy is just plain disgusting. Then again I have four kids and could never fathom aborting something I watched (via ultra sound) grow in my wife's womb and then killing it in the 6th month.

    Conversely, while it isn't something my wife and I would ever do due to our catholic upbringing, if a couple wants to abort a pregnancy right after the women has determined she is late and test positive as being pregnant then I cannot see how our government could impose my largely religious-based view points and morality upon them legislatively as that would constitute a violation of the separation of church and state as our federal government would be "taking sides" with one religious segment vs. others.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I don't lean. I am (little and big L, AAMOF).

    This is definitely something I disagree with. Perhaps the definition of 'human life' can be considered a gray area, but an embryo is a living creature. Whether it carries the legal status of a person is where it gets gray. Also, viability is pretty well defined to approximately 24-25 weeks gestational and a weight of more than 500 grams. That's about a 50-50 shot from a statistical standpoint, which goes up about 10 percent a week until 29 weeks where it's pretty much gravy after 30 weeks. That's our current technological limitation. I'll be interested to see the debate shift when we acheive an artificial womb (if I'm still alive then).

    This is another problem with trying to address it objectively. I couldn't care less about that aspect. If such a thing as a soul exists, it can't be measured currently, so bringing it up only clouds the debate.

    The problem is that neither 'side' will agree on the way the debate is framed. We're all ultimately just groups of cells. If we slip into a coma, we're just as non-viable as being in the womb. We can't survive without a tube pumping nutrients into us.

    That's why it'll never happen.

    Typical thread drift. They take on a life of their own.
    Toby, we're a lot closer on this than you may realize. If we narrow the defintion to "human life" or that of viability then we're still on the same page. Although I cannot imagine why a woman would ever need 24 weeks to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not (again, aside from exceptions).

    And by the way, I am not advocating a local government should legislate that a "soul enters the cells at the time of conception" and agree with you the matter is clouded because of the rhetoric - but I was trying to point out that at a local level these are things that may drive a decision for tougher abortion laws. e.g. you could probably guarantee that South Carolina would have tougher abortion laws than California.

    It's also a shame that we've allowed both political parties to keep us all divided over this issue so that they can keep using it as political capital to rally their bases during elections. It's truly the gift that keeps on giving for both parties and all of us cattle seem all to happy to jump on one side or the other of the fence.

    Back to the topic at hand - let me more specific - what is wrong with adult stem cell research?
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    And by the way, I am not advocating a local government should legislate that a "soul enters the cells at the time of conception" and agree with you the matter is clouded because of the rhetoric - but I was trying to point out that at a local level these are things that may drive a decision for tougher abortion laws. e.g. you could probably guarantee that South Carolina would have tougher abortion laws than California.
    You can also guarantee that the only current safe, regulated location in South Dakota to obtain a termination will be gone.

    It's also a shame that we've allowed both political parties to keep us all divided over this issue so that they can keep using it as political capital to rally their bases during elections. It's truly the gift that keeps on giving for both parties and all of us cattle seem all to happy to jump on one side or the other of the fence.
    It's become far too common for the major parties to dig in their heels on political footballs [Taxation (fear)/ Gays (fear)/ God (fear)/ Guns (fear)/ and more recently National Security (fear)], especially near election cycles. The cynic in me wants to believe this is purposefully orchestrated just to perpetuate the myth that the lowly public has no real choice. This nation is in dire need of a revolution. Not a political banner revolution, a real one.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    But since this thread is titled "adult stem cell" I'd like to simply ask for someone to explain to me the difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research? Seriously....lets get this back on topic if we can as it merits discussion if it can be done without fighting.
    28 posts on an Adult Stem Cell Research thread and this basic question is still not addressed as the thread can't seem to get past party line politics.
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #29  
    The OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23 View Post
    With promising results coming out of adult stem cell research like this, there maybe no reason to debate embryonic stem cell research in the future.

    Aaron
    No question was posed. Just another cheerleader post from a partisan perspective.
  10. #30  
    No such thing as an unborn child? Your definition, not that of the majority of people in this country. It is not necessary to declare this in order to remain objective. I am objective - life begins at conception. My definition and that of bunches of people, a fetus is an unborn child. A dictionary hanging around the house states, "The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth..." Also, from Latin, offspring. I do not consider that statement as emotionally based. Our society considers a fetus to be an unborn child, hence the laws in place to punish people who assault/kill/whatever the mother of an unborn child or the child itself.

    I suggest your statement is therefore a bit off the mark.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    There is no such thing as an unborn child, as a fetus becomes a child at birth. May be difficult to remain pragmatic about this to some, but necessary to remain objective.
  11. #31  
    Toby, very well said. It goes in hand with another aspect of the left - you say it often enough and it becomes "fact."

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    At what point in the process does this magical transformation happen? Contact with air? Not until the umbilical is cut?

    Drawing that line at such a point makes little sense. At least the 'viability' argument is a bit more logical, although I think that limitations of our technology should hardly be blamed on the ability of the 'fetus' to survive 'on its own'. Objectively, the 'fetus' can easily be considered a human life from the moment of conception. The point of its development cycle makes little difference objectively. It has a separate DNA signature from its host. Subjectively, we may find less ethical issues since it doesn't look quite as human, or may not be able to survive outside its host environment, but the semantic 'fetus' vs. 'child' stuff rings a bit hollow, IMO.
  12. #32  
    You are still grasping for something that is not there. The birthing process has not a thing to do with declaring the person developing inside the mother's womb as a being.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    "As you know, you give birth with the technology you have. They're not the technology you might want or wish to have at a later time."

    You also may want to look into the clinical definition of birth to clear up the above referenced confusion.



    By pragmatic reasoning, and by ethic, one must recognize that the fetus' 'host' is a legally defined person. It may not be the easy or sentimental way, but we're a nation of laws where decisions must be made outside of emotion. Within that framework, the clinical determination is between physician and 'host'.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    No question was posed. Just another cheerleader post from a partisan perspective.
    The question was posed in the quote in my post by moderateinny. And the repeated later again.
  14. #34  
    Roe v Wade is an issue of the state level, not the federal level. No where does it state in the Constitution that abortion is a "right." No where in the Constitution does it state that I should pay to have someones pregnancy terminated. As for being influenced by religious beliefs and localized societal norms, gosh, the left forgets this is a predominately Christian nation with a secular government. Also, I do not remember noting any religion sanctioning abortion, so it is just not a Christian-Judea concept.

    I do not favor abortions; however, the act is a state issue, not a federal. It is not in any remote manner addressed by the Federal Constitution.

    As for stem cell research, embryonic stem cells come from an unborn child killed in order to collect the stem cells. Note, the unborn child is not conceived in the womb, it is conceived in vitro. The cells are grown in a laboratory. An adult stem cell comes from an adult, not an unborn child. Adult stem cells are more stable Embryonic stem cells grow rapidly and erratically, could cause transplant rejection and are not considered practical at this point. Adult stem cells can come from the patient's own cells and therefore would not be rejected by the immune system.

    Going further, from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp, the following quote:

    "Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be."

    Thought not fact.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    This is where I lean more toward being a libertarian as I agree with this premise. The issue of when life begins, becomes viable, etc. are all very gray areas and subjective and that subjectiveness is commonly influenced heavily by religious beliefs and localized societal norms. Thus I do feel Roe v Wade goes too far as it ignores the localized norms established in a given state. Yet, I also believe in the separation of church and state and since this issue is so closely wed to religion...and one might argue Christian-Judea religion...I don't think the federal government can completely ignore the localities whereby their norms don't believe the soul enters the cells at the moment of conception, etc.

    So what do we do? Well perhaps Roe v Wade needs to be overturned and instead a new federal law to protect the interests of those that do not believe that a non-viable grouping of cells constitutes life are free to exercise their rights within x-days of the pregnancy...let’s say 60 days. Then leave it up to each state if they want to implement laws that make this broader or not depending upon the norms/values of their state. Of course you could take this to a city by city or block by block level but that would be impractical.

    It may well be that something like this is more moderate and while it surely won't appease the most right/left of the issue I predict it would satisfy an overwhelming majority. If the left wants a more liberal extension of this base law then they can move to states that have more liberal laws. If the right wants to abolish it outright then they can focus more of their attention on educating their parishioners that abortion is evil not matter when it is completed.

    Now what does this all have to do with adult stem cell research? Dunno….still waiting for an answer on that one.
  15. #35  
    Yet another Off Topic Thread operating true to form.

  16. #36  
    I was interested in the topic of this subject, but its been hijacked to a side thread. Since we aren't on topic here anyways, which is better...

    1. Taco Bell burrito
    2. Store bought frozen burrito
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 700p > Treo 700wx -> Mogul -> Touch Pro
    You may like to flash, but your phone shouldn't. LED Killer
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by stroths View Post
    I was interested in the topic of this subject, but its been hijacked to a side thread. Since we aren't on topic here anyways, which is better...

    1. Taco Bell burrito
    2. Store bought frozen burrito

    Yea, try as I might to get it back on topic this one is a lost cause.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Toby, we're a lot closer on this than you may realize. [...]
    I didn't say we were far apart.
    Back to the topic at hand - let me more specific - what is wrong with adult stem cell research?
    Nothing really. I don't think anyone has a problem with it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    As for stem cell research, embryonic stem cells come from an unborn child killed in order to collect the stem cells.
    Honestly, descriptions using loaded terms like that don't advance the debate either.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by stroths View Post
    I was interested in the topic of this subject, but its been hijacked to a side thread. Since we aren't on topic here anyways, which is better...

    1. Taco Bell burrito
    2. Store bought frozen burrito
    Out of the two, I'd probably lean towards Taco Bell, but neither is all that great.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions