Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46
  1. fishera's Avatar
    Posts
    494 Posts
    Global Posts
    495 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I don't support IVF. I would not likely to see federal funds supporting the practice.

    I would rather the practice not continue, however, the act of banning by the Government also raises concerns for me.
    I am not a FAN of it but not because of the ethics. But the emotional stress that would come from it, such as telling your child how they were created. It is a little odd, but I guess it is becoming more and more common so its not a large concern of mine.

    No, that idea of telling someone how they were created has nothing to do with stem cell research. As I support stem cell research for finding ways to create parts of the human body. yes it may seem a little gross and odd at first, but the lives it will save!
    Aaron M. Fisher
    CEO of Sonicfish Consulting
    www.SonicfishConsulting.com

    PDA/ Smartphones:
    Handspring Visor> Sony Clie SL10> Nokia N-Gage> Nokia 3300b> Treo 600> Treo 650> Treo 680> Nokia e71> Apple iPhone 3G> Palm Pre+
  2. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by fishera View Post
    It has been said for years that they can be found in other places besides embryos, so his thinking was that far off.

    As for "killing a person" to create a organ, thats not what the whole idea of stem cell research is! Its about finding out how to create individual limbs or organs, not entire people! Imagine the ability to need a new heart and they have one already "grown" for you... I don't know what kinda sick human would be against helping people without hurting other people.
    No need to "play dumb" and conveniently ignore the fact that stem cell research, in its current phase, requires the destruction of embryos - which, of course, must be alive when they are "harvested".

    And in order to meet the need to stem cell treatments, the only viable source to make that happen is cloning with the express purpose of stem cell harvesting.

    Now if you do not see the ethical concerns here, then perhaps more education is in order. But please do not make asinine statements like you did above that this is about being "against helping people".
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Consider how your life might be different had it not been preserved through that stage of development.
    Red herring. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

    In your absolutist world, does a human fat cell translate into an obese person?
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
       #24  
    The obvious response here is that if our parents had decided to take a cavalier attitude toward their embryonic progeny, we would not be here making ridiculous comments like the one above. LOL!
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by fishera View Post
    It has been said for years that they can be found in other places besides embryos, so his thinking was that far off.
    Aren't you aware that it was Limbaugh who invented the adult stem cell?
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Red herring. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
    Hmmmm. You don't see a connection between you, a human, and the life development cycle every human goes through? I doubt that, but I'll indulge you a bit.

    My opposition to embryonic stem cell research and IVF is of the same argument. I would prefer that each independent group of cells be given the same opportunity you received when you were at that stage of development--the opportunity to develop into your potential.
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post

    In your absolutist world, does a human fat cell translate into an obese person?
    Ah ha. Now I understand why you used the term 'red herring.' Initially, I thought you were assessing my comment. But, now I see you were introducing your own.

  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Hmmmm. You don't see a connection between you, a human, and the life development cycle every human goes through? I doubt that, but I'll indulge you a bit.
    I suppose that your ultimate opposition of IVF, a proven method of conception for 30 years, is that the will of the parents supercedes that of God in that it creates an artificial environment for conception where God's traditional methods have failed?

    My opposition to embryonic stem cell research and IVF is of the same argument. I would prefer that each independent group of cells be given the same opportunity you received when you were at that stage of development--the opportunity to develop into your potential.Ah ha. Now I understand why you used the term 'red herring.' Initially, I thought you were assessing my comment. But, now I see you were introducing your own.

    How small and belittling of you!
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    I suppose that your ultimate opposition of IVF, a proven method of conception for 30 years, is that the will of the parents supercedes that of God in that it creates an artificial environment for conception where God's traditional methods have failed?



    How small and belittling of you!

    Funny. Since it has been proven which cells become embryos and that is the topic, Shop's question about your parents is valid IMO. If they cared as much (or as little) about a developing embryo as you this conversation would be much shorter. That ceratinly has its appeal but alas is not the case.

    Now the fat cell comment is the best. Since it has never been shown, proven or even supposed that a fat cell can become an obese person or any other size person for that matter, all you are demonstrating there is your inability to construct a valid analogy.

    Please try again.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Funny. Since it has been proven which cells become embryos and that is the topic, Shop's question about your parents is valid IMO. If they cared as much (or as little) about a developing embryo as you this conversation would be much shorter. That ceratinly has its appeal but alas is not the case.

    Now the fat cell comment is the best. Since it has never been shown, proven or even supposed that a fat cell can become an obese person or any other size person for that matter, all you are demonstrating there is your inability to construct a valid analogy.

    Please try again.
    Thank you for underscoring your inept understanding of Biology-101. Your snide insults are the only purpose for your post, as you have nothing remaining to say.

    http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/education/pr...er7/page01.htm Try hard not to giggle to yourself at the clinical words used.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Thank you for underscoring your inept understanding of Biology-101. Your snide insults are the only purpose for your post, as you have nothing remaining to say.

    http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/education/pr...er7/page01.htm Try hard not to giggle to yourself at the clinical words used.
    What part of Bio 101 tells us fat cells become people? Please just answer the question. I really want to know the basis for you question to shop.

    You can spare me the attitude. I know you have one already.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    What part of Bio 101 tells us fat cells become people? Please just answer the question. I really want to know the basis for you question to shop.
    Ask Shop, as it was the analogous basis for his false-premise which you're currently tripping over. That was the point.

    You can spare me the attitude. I know you have one already.
    Just as yours was observed 3 posts up, my friend. And which was the cause of my response.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Ask Shop, as it was the analogous basis for his false-premise which you're currently tripping over. That was the point.



    Just as yours was observed 3 posts up, my friend. And which was the cause of my response.
    my attitude was generated by the silliness of your statement about fat cells and obese people.

    And I am asking YOU. Why cant you answer the question? I'll stand behind my previous statement. Embryos become people, fat cells do not. Shop made the point that had your parents been as cavalier about your embryo as you seem to be about others, you may not be here to talk about this.

    Is it different because you refuse to equate human embryos with human being thereby making it easier for you to advocate their use for research purposes? Why do put more value on the life of the cancer patient or the kidney transplant candidate than you do an unborn life? If it were suddenly discovered that stem cells could be as easily harvested from part of the adult population would you support that? Would you continue if it meant the destruction of the donor?

    I know it's a huge request, but would you mind addressing the statements followed by a "?"? Thanks.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by fishera View Post
    I am not a FAN of it but not because of the ethics. But the emotional stress that would come from it, such as telling your child how they were created. It is a little odd, but I guess it is becoming more and more common so its not a large concern of mine.

    No, that idea of telling someone how they were created has nothing to do with stem cell research. As I support stem cell research for finding ways to create parts of the human body. yes it may seem a little gross and odd at first, but the lives it will save!
    No offense Aaron, but I question the value of a 15 year old opinion on IVF. Great that you know what it is and all, but as a child (yes you are a child, no matter how advanced you sound) I don't believe you have enough life experience to even go there. Besides which what makes you think a parent has to share the IVF info with the child. It doesnt change anything about the relationship. Since the mother still carries and delivers the child, what benefit would there be to telling the child of the fertilization procedure? I mean really, what kid cares? Did you quiz your folks on where how you were conceived? Why would a lab be any more stressful to the child than say the park or the beach or a hotel in Cabo or the back of the Honda or the kitchen counter?
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    my attitude was generated by the silliness of your statement about fat cells and obese people.
    Already addressed, as this was the basis of Shop's false-premise. 'Nuf said.

    And I am asking YOU. Why cant you answer the question? I'll stand behind my previous statement. Embryos become people, fat cells do not. Shop made the point that had your parents been as cavalier about your embryo as you seem to be about others, you may not be here to talk about this.
    Is it my fault that you and Shop only understand this issue from the point of an embryo, and nothing prior?

    Is it different because you refuse to equate human embryos with human being thereby making it easier for you to advocate their use for research purposes?
    Believe in God? Take it up with him or her since the laws of reproductive biology don't change. An embryo is not a person.

    Why do put more value on the life of the cancer patient or the kidney transplant candidate than you do an unborn life?
    'Unborn life' = Conservative code for a nonviable fetus.

    If it were suddenly discovered that stem cells could be as easily harvested from part of the adult population would you support that? Would you continue if it meant the destruction of the donor?
    This really is a foreign subject to you if you're unaware of adult stem cell research.

    I know it's a huge request, but would you mind addressing the statements followed by a "?"? Thanks.
    I did. 5 posts ago.
  15. #35  
    Man you can be smug.

    Although all I have done is ask simple pointed questions, you continue to evade them. I have not stated my position on the matter and yet you throw me into the consetrvative camp. I am just looking for information and calling what I see as BS on one of your statements. Why is it so hard for you be to the point and answer? Why must insult my intelligence?

    And you call shop small and belittling. Pot, meet Kettle.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Man you can be smug.
    I have plenty of company here from resident Reagan Republicans and its hand-puppets.

    Although all I have done is ask simple pointed questions, you continue to evade them.
    From the beginning, your questions have been answered fully .

    I have not stated my position on the matter and yet you throw me into the consetrvative camp.
    If clarifying a position is necessary, could you need any more opportunity?

    I am just looking for information and calling what I see as BS on one of your statements.
    My statement that you're harping on was [again] analogous to Shop's stated position. Anything more to say on this?

    Why is it so hard for you be to the point and answer? Why must insult my intelligence?
    You're not exactly Snow White yourself.

    And you call shop small and belittling. Pot, meet Kettle.
    See above.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Thank you for underscoring your inept understanding of Biology-101. Your snide insults are the only purpose for your post, as you have nothing remaining to say.

    http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/education/pr...er7/page01.htm Try hard not to giggle to yourself at the clinical words used.
    Thanx for the link. It helps me to grasp your premise (I think).

    Following is my interpretation of your point:

    If,

    1) the inner cell mass of the blastocyst "can be induced to become a cell line, dividing indefinitely" and
    2) "the stem cells can, in theory develop into any tissue"

    Then,

    It is a "false premise" to imply that the blastocyst is of necessity a part of the human development cycle.

    INTERPRETATION ENDS HERE

    I realize that I'm now arguing with my own invention. But here is how I would counter such reasoning.

    Apart from "carefully defined conditions" and "proper chemical treatment" the blastocyst is generally expected to fulfill its capacity of becoming a fetus. Granted, miscarriages occur (often without the parents knowledge that fertilization had occured). So, it is understandable to make the distinction that not every blastocyst becomes a fetus. However, in so doing, we need not overlook the fact that blastocyst and fetus are stages of human development--the premise of my analogy.

    Even the article refers to the divided zygote (pre-blastocyst) as an embryo.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Thanx for the link. It helps me to grasp your premise (I think).

    Following is my interpretation of your point:
    If,
    1) the inner cell mass of the blastocyst "can be induced to become a cell line, dividing indefinitely" and
    2) "the stem cells can, in theory develop into any tissue"
    Then,
    It is a "false premise" to imply that the blastocyst is of necessity a part of the human development cycle.
    INTERPRETATION ENDS HERE
    Your premise now is that all stages of human procreation are, in fact, people? See the end of this post for further clarification, if necessary.

    I realize that I'm now arguing with my own invention. But here is how I would counter such reasoning.

    Apart from "carefully defined conditions" and "proper chemical treatment" the blastocyst is generally expected to fulfill its capacity of becoming a fetus.
    Care to rephrase?

    Granted, miscarriages occur (often without the parents knowledge that fertilization had occured). So, it is understandable to make the distinction that not every blastocyst becomes a fetus. However, in so doing, we need not overlook the fact that blastocyst and fetus are stages of human development--the premise of my analogy.

    Even the article refers to the divided zygote (pre-blastocyst) as an embryo.
    Incorrect. The zygote is the fertilized egg which has yet to divide, therefore it cannot be considered an embryo. Nor can the blastocyst be considered a person as it has yet to divide into independent groups of cells. Being that the zygote is only one step removed from being sperm and egg, will you now claim that they are "life" also? As shown from the article here:
    The fertilized egg (zygote) divides into a multicellular embryo. With further incubation a blastocyst, a hollow ball of about 256 cells, is formed. The blastocyst has two kinds of cell groups, a group on the surface that is capable of initiating implantation into the uterus and becoming the placenta, and the inner cell mass with the capacity to become the fetus.
    As studious as you are, I'm surprised this escaped you.

    Originally Posted by shopharim
    In this discussion, other peoples' ethics are the only option since the people whose bodies are most affected are unable to speak for themselves.
    This is the post which caused my initial response to you. As can be seen and now understood, embryos, nor blastocysts, do not have bodies and cannot be considered people.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    ...As can be seen and now understood, embryos, nor blastocysts, do not have bodies and cannot be considered people.
    If people-hood does not begin at fertilization, at what point in the human procreation cycle does one enter that class of being?
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    If people-hood does not begin at fertilization, at what point in the human procreation cycle does one enter that class of being?
    You still maintain that "people-hood" begins at the point of the zygote? I do not, as I believe has been clear from the beginning of this exchange.

    By what definition do you come to that conclusion?
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions