Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by nareau
    Correct me (and please, forgive me) if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that "fertilized egg" == "a life". Furthermore, it seems that you believe it to be "a human life".
    You have characterized my beliefs accurately.

    Quote Originally Posted by nareau
    From that belief follows some pretty intense ethical considerations--namely, the idea that IVF results in the death of millions of human lives. What I don't understand is this: How can you believe such a thing is happening in the US, and talk so casually about it?

    This is something I've never understood about the anti-abortion mindset. Am I missing something, or mis-interpreting your statements?

    Nareau
    What do you propose as a more appropriate respnse?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    With more of that kind of thinking,
    What kind of thinking?

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    there would never have been vaccines, antibiotics, no medicine in general, no engineering, no science, nothing. We would still live in Middle Age with famines, sky high infant mortality rates, etc.
    Which of these areas of development came at the expense of intentionally creating and discarding embryos? Yes, there has been loss of life in experiements. But, those were typically voluntary participants informed at some level of the risk involved.


    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Lucky there were people who were not discouraged by such questions - or would you prefer living without the results of scientific progres?

    This doesn't mean we should allow science to do everything, but it certainly is the wrong question to ask at such an early stage of a new field of research.
    When is a good time to raise the question? How many embryos should be created and destroyed for this purpose before we discuss whether that is a practice we want to condone?
  3.    #43  
    illeagal? clulup I thought you were the esteemed steward of proper english language !

    its illegal.
  4. #44  
    I don't know... I mean, that sounds like an atrocity on par with the holocaust, or slavery. It leads down a pretty scary road. I think if I held your same beliefs, I would do whatever it took to prevent such an atrocity. I certainly am glad you're not out there killing fertility doctors (or hopeful parents).

    So the next question I have is probably one you've been asked a hundred times: Why do you believe a single-cell (a fertilized egg) qualifies as a human life? Does it have to do with potential? Or something else? Obviously, there are some pretty big differences between a fertilized egg and a 26-year-old guy sitting in front of his computer.

    Nareau

    PS-I hope I don't come across as attacking your beliefs. While I doubt I'll ever see things the same way, I honestly want to understand your position more fully.
  5.    #45  
    clulup, did you read the SECOND link I provided for you after the one addressing reproductive cloning?

    you seem to have skipped over my link to the article on your therapeutic cloning.

    convenient.

    you just keep returning to the first article. there have been problems found with therapeutic cloning as well. look into it any?
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by nareau
    So the next question I have is probably one you've been asked a hundred times: Why do you believe a single-cell (a fertilized egg) qualifies as a human life? Does it have to do with potential? Or something else? Obviously, there are some pretty big differences between a fertilized egg and a 26-year-old guy sitting in front of his computer.
    That single cell clearly has the entire DNA of the individual encoded in it. It reproduces according to the specifications of that DNA. The "potential" 26-year-old is fully defined at that time (with the exception of environment influences). There is not doubt that the cell, if it follows its normal course, will lead to the manifestation of another human. For sure, no other species will come of it.

    There is, however, the possibility, that the reproductive process will malfunction. In such cases, either the pregnancy will auto-abort. Or the human will be subject to potential under-development.

    Quote Originally Posted by nareau
    PS-I hope I don't come across as attacking your beliefs. While I doubt I'll ever see things the same way, I honestly want to understand your position more fully.
    Your questions come across as reasonable and appropriate. They help me to both expose AND examine my beliefs at the same time. And, hopefully, my responses give you opportunity to do the same for your beliefs.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by nareau
    I don't know... I mean, that sounds like an atrocity on par with the holocaust, or slavery. It leads down a pretty scary road.
    Absolutely!
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    From the Stanford Article:

    But most research proponents feel that the rights of a blastocyst are far outweighed by the need for new treatments and potential cures. And they do not consider blastocysts to be human beings per se. "I believe that the human embryo has some moral status, but it is quite different from the status of a living, breathing human who is desperately ill," explains Hank Greely, JD, a law professor with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. "I think human life is too sacred to let it be lost for lack of pursuing promising research avenues."

    This was the same rationale that emboldened scientists to subject the "Tuskeegee Airmen" to Syphillis (See: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9002212)
    The Tuskegee Airmen have nothing to do with the Tuskegee syphilis study, but anyway - The Tuskegee syphilis study, (in which members of a minority were denied the proper medical treatment in the name of a criminal study) is totally different from what is mentioned in the Stanford article: the moral question you have to answer is the following:
    Will you deny a child or a grown-up person the chance of being cured, because you do not want to make use of stem cells (keep in mind there are also stem cells that are not derived from 8-cell-stage embryos?

    You can also ask the following question:
    Is this a human being, with the same rights as a child or a grown-up person?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    illeagal? clulup I thought you were the esteemed steward of proper english language !

    its illegal.
    Hey, I feel honored about being called the steward of proper english language, given English is my second or third language....

    Thanks for pointing the "leagal" error out to me, though.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    How many embryos should be created and destroyed for this purpose before we discuss whether that is a practice we want to condone?
    Stem cell research is in a very early stage, but the potential is big.

    The embryos are not created for the purpose of stem cell research, but during in vitro fertilization in order to cure infertility. They would be destroyed regardless of stem cell research.

    Besides, I find it difficult to understand how much energy some people put into fighting stem cell research/the use of 8-cell-stage embryos, while contraceptive coils ("intrauterine devices, iuds") are in very widespread use. Their effect is the same, but at a FAR larger scale: they interfere with the passage and implantation (settling into the womb) of an embryo at the same stage of development....

    Why don't you focus your attention on a ban of contraceptive coils?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Will you deny a child or a grown-up person the chance of being cured, because you do not want to make use of stem cells (keep in mind there are also stem cells that are not derived from 8-cell-stage embryos?
    The moral question you ask really has no meaning. Simply because the presuppostion of your question is the core of the whole debate. If you believe an embryo has the moral right to live then the answer to your question is completely different than if you believe an embryo has no moral right to live.

    Secondly, if one allows for moral qualifications when giving value to life then one of the outworkings of that belief is the sphyllis study, holocaust, slavery, abortion. Thats why I believe it is best to play it safe and say all human life has certain inalienable rights- life,liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    It is a very tricky area. When does a human life have value. When it reaches 16 cells, 1024? Able to survive outside the womb, takes it first breath, when its not paralyzed, not jewish? This is a dangerous game.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Is this a human being, with the same rights as a child or a grown-up person?
    If it isn't, when is it a human being?
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    If it isn't, when is it a human being?
    The focus is on "...with the same rights as a grown-up person"
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The focus is on "...with the same rights as a grown-up person"
    So answer. :-) "When?"
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Thats why I believe it is best to play it safe and say all human life has certain inalienable rights- life,liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    When does a human life have value. When it reaches 16 cells, 1024? Able to survive outside the womb, takes it first breath, when its not paralyzed, not jewish? This is a dangerous game.
    It is a very tricky area, I agree. We have to be very careful, but we also have to consider the fact that NOT doing anything (meaning not using 8-cell-stage embryos for research) also has moral implications, like not using all possible means to help cure lethal diseases. When weighing 8-cell-stage embryos derived from in vitro fertilization which will be destroyed anyway against possible cures, I tend to think it is more useful and more morally correct to use those embryos for research instead of just destroying them.

    So you say all life has inalienable rights - life, for instance. In this case you totally oppose in vitro fertilization in order to help infertile couples, abortion, and contraceptive coils? What about death penalty? Inalienable rights to live, hmmm?
    Last edited by clulup; 10/29/2004 at 04:12 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #56  
    Answer the question. I'm curious. :-) Your response is not an answer (nor an attempt).
  17. #57  
    Okay, you editted that to make it a bit closer to an answer. I'll stop bugging you.
  18. #58  
    I'm grappling with death penaltyp
  19. #59  
    enalty because , unlike other topics here, it is a society's *response to an individual's deed.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Answer the question. I'm curious. :-) Your response is not an answer (nor an attempt).
    At what point does a human being become a human being?

    When the sperm enters the cell?
    When the two nuclei fuse?
    After the first division of the cell?
    When the embryo is settled into the whomb?
    When the nervous system starts developing?
    When the heart starts beating?
    When the fetus can move its limbs?
    When the child can survive outside of the mother?
    When the child is born?
    When self-knowledge develops?

    There is not one special point at which a human being becomes a human being. The process is a gradual one, and with each step the rights of the developing human being increase.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions