Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 106
  1.    #61  
    As I think on this, it occurs to me that the underlying question in this discussion is "when does life begin?"

    Consider, clulup, chillig and I all express concern for preserving quality of life. On that basis, we each find problems with certain procedures. The ones that they condone only immediately effect the very early stages of development.

    So I suppose the proverbial line should be drawn right at the point where life begins. And no artificial means of starting the process before that point or ending the process after that point need be implemented.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The only place that clulup and I differ on this is that I want to protest, preserve, and promote life for all sizes of human cell clumps, not just the ones that matured to a gazillion cells.
    So you would say this structure has the same rights as a fully grown baby?



    I am sure it has rights and a certain degree of dignity and deserves protection and control, but it is not the same as a fully developed baby. It does not have perception, feelings or anything of that sort.

    There is no clear-cut beginning of "life". It is a gradual process, and also rights are given gradually.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So you would say this structure has the same rights as a fully grown baby?



    I am sure it has rights and a certain degree of dignity and deserves protection and control, but it is not the same as a fully developed baby. It does not have perception, feelings or anything of that sort.

    There is no clear-cut beginning of "life". It is a gradual process, and also rights are given gradually.
    I don't know what that structure is. Assuming the picture presents human cells at the earliest stages of development, "the structure" has the same inherent value as a fully grown baby, and as such has the same inalienable rights.

    Now, if we raise the matter of skin cells in this context, a reasonable rebut to my supposition is that the since skin cells are likewise human cells, "should we somehow try to tack every skin cell to ensure that it is treated humanely?"

    The only problem with that concept is that we know the normal path forward for the pictured cell is to develop into the fully grown baby, whose normal path forward is to develop into an adolescent....who becomes an adult...who...

    Whereas, the normal path forward for a skin cell is to be discarded within approximately 7 years from its first appearance.
  4.    #64  
    Note the distinction being rights being "given" versus "inalienable"
  5.    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I don't condone it either. In fact it would be illegal in Switzerland and most European countries even to try, I don't know about the US. Reproductive cloning has many drawbacks, drawbacks which are not acceptable in humans. Reproductive cloning is highly infefficient. This means that a very high number of pregnancies will result in stillborn children (also in very late stages of pregnancy), and in children suffering from very severe disabilities and diseases. Few cloned animals were fully healthy, many died shortly after birth. All of this may be acceptable when done with animals, but not with humans.

    Because a high number of pregnancies is needed (and hence a high number of women willing to participate in a process with a high chance of disastrous outcome), I am not so sure cloned humans will be a reality in the future. I think it should be made illegal all over the world.

    Therapeutic cloning is a totally different matter. It means growing certain types of human tissues from stem cells (which may, but don't always have to come from embryos). Those tissues may then be used to cure diseases. It does not involve pregnancy and the negative effects described above.
    I should point out how much I respect the consistency of your position.

    There might be more willingness on the part of opponents to make concessions in some areas if such clear lines of distinction were presented. It is only with such strong boundaries that the leap from therapeutic to reproductive is prevented.

    Because, scientifically speaking, it is a fine line (if a line exists at all) between therapeutic and reproductive. The distinction is found in the ethical/moral realm, i.e. desire to prevent/reduce occurence stillborn children and severe disabilities and diseases in once instance, and the absence of such negative effects in the other.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Because, scientifically speaking, it is a fine line (if a line exists at all) between therapeutic and reproductive. The distinction is found in the ethical/moral realm, i.e. desire to prevent/reduce occurence stillborn children and severe disabilities and diseases in once instance, and the absence of such negative effects in the other.
    Sorry, but this is not the case at all.

    The goal of reproductive cloning is a fully grown individal. In the case of human cloning a human. In reproductive cloning, the nucleus of an egg cell (hence just a cell and not a separate "organism") is removed and the rest of the cell is fused with the nucleus of a body cell (e.g. skin cell instead of sperm cell). So no life is destroyed, only new life is created (although life with a very small chance of developing normally). Both the goal and the source of the cells is totally different from reproductive cloning:

    The goal of therapeutic cloning is e.g. new tissue. In this case stem cells are grown in vitro (in a test tube) and ideally form the type of cells needed. One source of those stem are embryos, which are fertilized egg cells a few days after fertilization in the test tube, a lump of cells consisting of up to 100-150 cells, grown in a test tube. Stem stells can also come from other sources, e.g. umbilical cords. There is no strict link to the use of embryos, though those are most promising presently.
    Last edited by clulup; 08/17/2005 at 09:29 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7.    #67  
    I'm not sure what it is that is not the case. I understand from your description that the goals are different. But, isn't the science (i.e. methods, practices, principles) essentially the same?
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I'm not sure what it is that is not the case. I understand from your description that the goals are different. But, isn't the science (i.e. methods, practices, principles) essentially the same?
    Maybe I made a long story a bit too short in my previous post... not enough time to make it really short.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/clo_ther.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9.    #69  
    The long story was abbreviated appropriately and effectively. The additional sources corroborate your explanation.

    From wikipedia:
    An egg cell taken from a donor has its nucleus removed. Another cell with the genetic material to be cloned is fused with the original cell.

    Another way of cloning is by parthenogenesis, where an unfertilized egg cell is induced to divide and grow as if it were fertilized. This technique only works on females.

    In reproductive cloning, the cloned embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus. This should develop into a normal baby, its only distinction being that it would be almost genetically identical to the DNA donor.
    From religioustolerance:
    1. Take a woman's ovum, and remove its DNA. This converts it to a form of human life into what is basically a factory for creating a pre-embryo.
    2. Remove the DNA from a cell taken from a human, and inserting it into the ovum.
    3. Giving the resulting ovum an electrical shock to start up its embryo making operation. In a small percentage of cases, a pre-embryo will be formed.
    4. The pre-embryo is allowed to develop and produce many stem cells. So far, the procedure is identical to that used in adult DNA cloning. However, the pre-embryo is not implanted in a woman's womb in order to try to produce a pregnancy.
    5. Stem cells are removed from the pre-embryo; this results in its death.
    6. The stem cells would be encouraged to grow into whatever tissue or organ is needed to treat the patient. Stem cells are a unique form of human cell that can theoretically develop into many organs or body parts the body.
    7. The tissue or organ would be transplanted into the patient.
    It appears that the same methods, principles and practices are used, accept that in one case the resultant embryon is implanted in the mother's womb and in the other case it is not.

    This seems to support my estimate that the science is largely the same, but the ethical/moral implications are different.
  10. #70  
    What makes me laugh about this thread is that there is virtually nothing about this thread that is relating to the title in which it has been posted under.

    I have 3 children and our reproductive process went like this.

    Tried naturally for 6 years....nada.... ($ cost.....well marriage :O )
    Tried Artificial Insemination 6 times.... nada... ($100-$200 each time)
    Tried Invitrofertilization.....3 times (cost $6000 - $8000 per time)
    Adoption...1 ... (cost $5000-$7000)

    Total Initial Cost: $30,900 approx

    Results: PRICELESS

    I am an active Mormon and by most US and World standards to be VERY religious.
    Do I believe in birth control, you bet.

    Until you try to have children, in the covenant of marriage, and are two responsible people who want to have children to bring lives and souls into the world, not just for the fun of having sex (which is fun anyway :P ) You have no idea how frustrating, anger provoking, hurtful, it is to see two 16 year old kids, get drunk at a party and end up with a beautiful soul in their hands that they could not give two cents about.

    Is it a religious thing? ....maybe, but more then that it is an appreciation for a LIFE. Whether you believe it is from God or not, is at some point, not the point. I believe it starts with the PARENTS of these KIDS who have BABIES!

    When the parents show a flaky view about life...how can you expect anything different from the kids.

    I am not talking about if it is RIGHT or WRONG for contraception or abortion. That is a personal matter for each couple to decide. Do I have my opinions, of course, but that is not my point of replying to this thread.

    I just laugh every time I see or hear a discussion about having children or trying to. Why do I laugh...well to be honest, most of the time it is from people who have sex for a few months and then complain they cannot get pregnant. Most of the time people adopt for the GLORY of saying they adopted...not meaning they don't love the child, they learn to love them, but more at first, because they think it is a nice social thing to do. They don't YEARN to have a child to share their life with.
    They don't sit up at nights with their spouse crying and asking why they are being punished with the inability to not do the ONE thing that every RELIGION in the world commands them to do...reproduce. Even Atheists believe that they must reproduce.

    So until you walk on that path and in those shoes, I find it hard to get involved in a discussion about birth control.

    I know, I know...someone is just dying to say "Wait, Until you have a hard time having kids you cannot discuss birth control, adoption, contraception...."

    No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if you have to ask a question like that.....well, you are lucky.... because when you are in a situation like mine, you don't have a luxury of asking questions like that.....

    I guess from reading this thread here are the difference with what you are talking about and I am talking about....

    Embryo, DNA = Science...
    Children, Souls, Babies = The stuff that makes life worth living.

    To me science does not make life worth living.......the smile and hug of a child makes life worth living....


    Anyway, sorry if this went to long....

    Have a nice day
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by DeathtoToasters
    ... Most of the time people adopt for the GLORY of saying they adopted...not meaning they don't love the child, they learn to love them, but more at first, because they think it is a nice social thing to do. They don't YEARN to have a child to share their life with.
    ...
    Cite your sources.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by lb505
    Cite your sources.

    Thanks for making my point.

    In my opinion...too much thinking with the head...and not enough feeling with the heart.

    My heart and soul doesn't need to have sources quoted when it comes to what someones intentions are. Like I said above...I didn't say all people were like that...I said some.... If you are worried about my sources...well keep worrying.

    I saw the link in your signature. I really don't know what to think about your website.

    As I mentioned before I am a adoptive parent and I think if my adoptive child wants to find his/her birth parents, they should have the right to..if they want.
    But as someone who knows the birth mother and birth father of my adoptive child, well then, if they ask me not to make their names known...that is their choice. Nobody should be forced to reveal themselves in that situation. At least in my opinion.

    If someone longs to know that is one thing...is someone thinks that they should know because it is their 'right', despite all the consequences, that is another.

    Some birth parents have every right NOT to want to be found. Maybe they have another life with people who would NOT understand that they have another child. Should their lives be damaged because someone else thinks that they have the 'right' to do that to them?

    Like I said, my situation is unique as I have had contact with the birth parents and they have said that when and if my child wishes to contact their birth parents, to let them know... and if the time is right and the situation is right, maybe it will happen.

    But to be honest, I am not worried about that...because my child will grow up knowing that people come into the world in different ways and how that way is, is not really as important as to the way they were loved, cared for, and provided for throughout their life.

    Like I said...my opinion.
    Last edited by DeathtoToasters; 08/17/2005 at 10:41 AM.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by DeathtoToasters
    Thanks for making my point.

    Im my opinion...too much thinking with the head...and not enough feeling with the heart.

    My heart and soul doesn't need to have sources quoted when it comes to what someones intentions are. Like I said above...I didn't say all people were like that...I said some.... If you are worried about my sources...well keep worring.
    I don't see how she is making you're point. You said
    Most of the time people adopt for the GLORY of saying they adopted
    Based on what? You can't just throw crap out like that, and expect it to just be, because you say so.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  14. #74  
    You said most, not some.

    http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview.html#head

    Inability to Have Biological Children Is a Motivating Factor in Private Adoption
    People decide to adopt for many reasons, but infertility is one of the most common motivating factors. In one study, more than 80% of those adopting independently or through a private agency responded that the inability to have a biological child was the reason they chose to adopt.

    For the record, I'm glad society/government programs, etc. are doing more to keep children with their biological families and less are being put up for adoption.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I don't see how she is making you're point. You said


    Based on what? You can't just throw crap out like that, and expect it to just be, because you say so.

    She is making my point because to me it seems like all that is being discussed is DNA and not the soul, spirit , and life of the child.

    And to answer your second ? I am not throwing CRAP like that out. I am basing my comments on my experiences.

    I don't feel that I need to sit here and quote studies by people who have never adopted, gone through invitro, artificial insemination, the sleepless nights of crying, praying, curing God, pleading with God, etc. to make my point.

    Like I mentioned though out my whole post....these are my experiences and my opinions.

    Nothing I have said is an absolute. These are what I have seen, lived, heard, experienced etc.

    If they bother you THAT much..maybe instead of questions and attacking me...you should ask yourself why you are so angry with what I said.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by lb505
    You said most, not some.

    http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview.html#head


    For the record, I'm glad society/government programs, etc. are doing more to keep children with their biological families and less are being put up for adoption.

    If it is in the best interest of the CHILD to be left in the home of the biological family, then great. IF not , then it is NOT something that is good.

    There is no way for me to make an opinion about that.

    I think it is egotistical and stupid to make an overall assumption of that situation.

    Biological data is NOT a reason to keep a child with a family if that family is incapable of loving, caring and providing a good home for that child.

    If you believe that just because someone is a biological child of someone is a reason to keep someone in the home despite the above mentioned things....well then, there is nothing more I can say.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by DeathtoToasters
    If they bother you THAT much..maybe instead of questions and attacking me...you should ask yourself why you are so angry with what I said.
    I am not bothered, and the only one getting angry here is you. I thought it an odd statement to make when I read it, and the fact that lb mentioned it told me it wasn't just me.

    You're basically saying that most people who adopt do so for attention. I merely ask how you come to this conclusion. You are the one getting angry, not me. If you want to bring glory and attention to yourself, wouldn't it be easier to just buy a Hummer, and say "Notice me!!"?

    If I were angry, you'd know it, just ask Clulup.

    Therefore, since I am not angry, I won't bother asking myself why I'm so angry...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18. #78  
    Fair enough...trust me if I was angry you would also know it

    If you would like me to change my statement from most to some...then that is what I will do. Maybe I was just in the passion of writing when I said most..... 'some' does seem like a more appropriate statement.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by DeathtoToasters
    Fair enough...trust me if I was angry you would also know it

    If you would like me to change my statement from most to some...then that is what I will do. Maybe I was just in the passion of writing when I said most..... 'some' does seem like a more appropriate statement.
    "Some" would be more appropriate, I can think of "some" Hollywood types that IMO do this, and sometimes I wonder the motives. What nanny will raise it...sure they'll have a nice house and toys, but at what expense? But I don't think "most" adoptors are like this.

    Of course I could be wrong, which is why I asked the question to begin with
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    "Some" would be more appropriate, I can think of "some" Hollywood types that IMO do this, and sometimes I wonder the motives. What nanny will raise it...sure they'll have a nice house and toys, but at what expense? But I don't think "most" adoptors are like this.

    Of course I could be wrong, which is why I asked the question to begin with

    Agreeded...sold to the monkey with the funny hat (and this time I do mean funny )

    Although Sam Bullock would disagree with me
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions